Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: The Chairman of Ways and Means has asked me to inform the House that she will consider for selection for the Committee stage of the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill amendments that can be tabled up to and until 1 o’clock today.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Scotland

The Secretary of State was asked—

Child Poverty

Alex Cunningham: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the level of child poverty in Scotland.

Will Quince: The Government are committed to tackling poverty so that we can make a lasting difference to long-term outcomes. This Government have lifted 400,000 people out of absolute poverty since 2010, and income inequality has fallen. While the Scottish Government have powers to tackle poverty through the devolution of skills, education, health and employment programmes, it is important that Scotland’s two Governments work together to address this critical issue.

Alex Cunningham: It is estimated that one in four children in Scotland—230,000 of them—are living in poverty, and that is substantially higher than in many other European countries. Like poor children everywhere, these children are likely to achieve less in school and more likely to suffer chronic illness and poor mental health. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that child poverty could rise to about 37% by 2021. Does the Minister not agree that this Tory Government’s welfare policies, such as the two-child benefit cap, zero-hours contracts and the dreaded universal credit, are contributing to the increasing rate of child poverty in Scotland?

Will Quince: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I disagree with him. Since 2010, there are over 3.8 million more people in work and 730,000 fewer children growing up in workless households. Over three quarters of this employment growth has been in full-time work, which can be proven substantially to reduce the  risk of poverty. But I know how passionate the hon. Gentleman is on this issue, and I would be very happy to meet him to hear his concerns.

Tony Lloyd: The Minister has got to reflect on his answer. Yes, of course he is right about the growth of employment, but the majority of children in poverty in Scotland—230,000 of them—are living in families with parents in work. That is a disgrace. What are this Government going to do about it?

Will Quince: We do not want to see one individual family or child in poverty. The hon. Gentleman talks about in-work poverty. We are taking action, as a Government, to tackle in-work poverty. Real wages have risen for over a year—22 months in a row—and total wages rose by 3.2%. The national living wage rises to £8.72 in April, and we want to go further. That is why the Chancellor has announced that the national living wage will rise to £10.50 by 2024. We also have a focus, through a network of jobcentres, on in-work progression.

Mhairi Black: We know that children living in poverty experience poor physical and mental health, employment difficulties, stigma and chronic low self-esteem. This creates problems not just for the individual but for government further down the line, so would the Minister surprise us all and welcome the Scottish Government’s introduction of the Scottish child payment later this year?

Will Quince: I am looking very closely at that measure and its impact. I gently suggest to the hon. Lady that this is in fact evidence of devolution working. There is no monopoly on good ideas, and where the evidence suggests that a measure works, we should of course explore it, and I will. I stress that I am committed to working with the Scottish Government to improve the life chances of people across Scotland, as I am across our whole United Kingdom.

Mhairi Black: If this is evidence of devolution working, I would like to remind the Minister that that is why we want all the welfare powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Once rolled out, this new payment will help roughly 30,000 children out of poverty. So if it is a good measure for the Scottish Government, why are his Government not following suit?

Will Quince: I think I have already answered that question—I will look at it very closely. If the Scottish Government are serious about addressing child poverty more broadly, they should be making full use of the powers to reduce housing costs, improve earnings and enhance social security. As I said, the Scottish Government have powers to tackle poverty through the devolution of skills, education, health and employment programmes. In fact, the UK Government do welcome the Scottish Government’s child poverty strategy. I look forward to working very closely with my counterpart in the Scottish Government to ensure that we cover these devolved areas.

David Mundell: The child poverty payment is welcome, but does the Minister share my concerns that the vast number of welfare powers that the SNP Scottish  Government argued for, which were transferred in the Scotland Act 2016, have not been taken forward? In fact, some of them are now delayed until 2024. Is welfare not just another victim of the Scottish Government’s obsession with the constitution, rather than focusing on the day job?

Will Quince: I thank my right hon. Friend and recognise his huge expertise in this area. The Scottish Government, and indeed this Government, want to address these issues, and I am committed to working with my counterparts in the Scottish Government to tackle child poverty and poverty in all its forms.

Renewable Energy

Cat Smith: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the renewable energy sector in Scotland.

Chris Matheson: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the renewable energy sector in Scotland.

Alister Jack: My Department has regular engagement with colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on a range of issues relevant to Scotland, including the renewable energy sector.

Cat Smith: Scotland has a huge geographical advantage when it comes to wave and tidal energy, with reports suggesting that up to 40,000 jobs could be created in the sector if it had Government support. What work is being done in Government to explore wave and tidal technology?

Alister Jack: The hon. Lady is right; we have an advantage with that and with our wind speeds, mountains and hydro schemes. The Government are supporting technology. Wave and tidal technology is being investigated in universities, and we are completely behind that, should it prove to work.

Chris Matheson: My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) is right about the geographical advantage. What infrastructure work are the Government undertaking—for example, interconnectors and storage—so that the clean green energy that Scotland is able to generate can be shared with the rest of the United Kingdom?

Alister Jack: As the hon. Gentleman knows, interconnectors are a devolved matter, but we are looking at upgrading the schemes so that we can transfer our power across the United Kingdom and the advantage that we have in Scotland with renewables and our growing renewable industry can benefit the whole UK.

Tony Lloyd: The Secretary of State will recall that, when EDF was given a licence to develop the wind farm at Neart na Gaoithe, 10 miles off the Fife coast, there was a commitment that 1,000 jobs would be created in making the jackets for the wind turbines. Can he tell the House how many jobs have been created?

Alister Jack: No, because I do not know the answer—that is a perfectly straight answer to a straight question. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the sector deal aims to create 27,000 jobs by 2030.

Tony Lloyd: I will tell the Secretary of State how many jobs were created: 1,000—in Indonesia. Is the GMB union right in saying that the transportation of those wind turbines from Indonesia to the Fife coast will be the equivalent of 35 million cars on the road? How does that fit our commitment to greening the economy, and what confidence can people in Scotland have that jobs in a wind farm 10 miles off the Fife coast will be created for people in Scotland, not people in Indonesia?

Alister Jack: That is the market economy, and we need to be better at pricing and better at producing our turbines—that is the straight answer. We will discuss this issue and many others at COP 26 in Glasgow later this year, when we discuss the climate emergency, but I do not dispute the fact that bringing turbines from Indonesia is not the answer; we need to find a better way of efficiently delivering them in the UK.

Karl McCartney: We are 13 minutes in, and I am tempted to ask the Secretary of State—and it is to do with wind, because Saturday was a windy day—about us winning the Calcutta cup. [Interruption.] Come on! You have to be happy with that.
We have had a balance of payments deficit, with lots of wind farms in Scotland being paid not to produce any electricity. Is that likely to take place later this year?

Alister Jack: Obviously, I disagree with my hon. Friend on the Calcutta cup; that goes without saying. It was a wet, windy and miserable day at Murrayfield for me.
We are trying to improve the way in which wind works for Scotland. Contracts for difference provide certainty for investors over the longevity and protect consumers. In October 2019, at the last round of contracts for difference, six of the 12 awarded went to projects in Scotland.

Bob Blackman: Can my right hon. Friend update the House on the untapped capacity for using renewables in Scotland, and how many jobs would be created as a result of enhancing that capability?

Alister Jack: There is enormous capability not just with more offshore wind schemes, but with more hydro schemes. As I said earlier, we intend to create 27,000 more jobs through using that untapped capacity.

Angus MacNeil: Offshore wind and contracts for difference entry was cost-free to both the Government and the consumer as the strike price was below the typical wholesale price, but 240 MW of that remains stranded because Ofgem demands that the island of Lewis has at least 369 MW to build an interconnector cable. Another 180 MW could have been consented to, and that would have been cost-free, but they were not consented to due to Government caps. Can we have some joined-up thinking in the Government between the interconnector and the contracts for difference to ensure we are not billowing out fossil fuels when we could instead have 600 MW of wind being produced?

Alister Jack: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. One of the things the UK should look at, for future infrastructure and shared prosperity, is building that interconnector.

Trade

James Sunderland: What recent economic assessment his Department has made of the value of trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Greg Smith: What recent economic assessment his Department has made of the value of trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Alister Jack: Busy day—[Hon. Members: “Ah.”] It appears I have woken a few people up.
Scottish exports to the rest of the UK increased in 2018 by £1.2 billion to £51.2 billion. As a result, the rest of the UK continues to be Scotland’s largest market for exports, accounting for three times the value of exports to the European Union.

James Sunderland: Given the Secretary of State’s assessment, will he confirm that Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is worth more than three times that with the EU, and this is only one of the benefits on offer of being part of the United Kingdom, not least for British firms?

Alister Jack: The Scottish Government’s own figures show that Scotland’s most important trading partner is the rest of the UK and, as my hon. Friend said, that is worth more than three times the trade with the other 27 EU countries combined. In other words, the Scottish Government’s figures show that over 60% of Scotland’s exports go to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Indeed, I would argue that this is just one of the many benefits that Scotland has from being part of the United Kingdom.

Greg Smith: Given the excellent figures my right hon. Friend has just given, does he share my concern that the separatist agenda peddled by the SNP is a direct threat to Scottish jobs and that it would inevitably end up, if its dreams come true, in a hard border?

Alister Jack: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that Nicola Sturgeon’s separatist agenda is a real threat to Scotland’s jobs, businesses and the economy, and that is why I am against the First Minister’s demand for another independence referendum. We want 2020 to be a year of growth, stability and opportunity for Scotland and for the whole United Kingdom, whereas the SNP wants 2020 to be a year of more political wrangling and wasteful debate.

Ian Murray: Labour MSP Monica Lennon has introduced the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Parliament to give free provision to women in Scotland, but it is opposed by the SNP Government because of “tampon raids” by the English into Scotland to steal the products. If that is the case, what kind of border does the Secretary  of State think will be required in the event of an independent Scotland, with a separate currency, a different regulatory environment and different provisions on trade?

Alister Jack: The hon. Gentleman makes an exceptionally good point. That is a border we need to avoid, and it makes no sense to have any sort of border between Gretna and Berwick. As for the SNP opposing that, and the opportunity to reduce VAT rates and other things that would help people on the poorest incomes, I simply do not understand what it is thinking.

Alistair Carmichael: If the Secretary of State truly values the trade between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, why is he prepared to countenance a situation in which we would lose frictionless trade between Scotland and Northern Ireland?

Alister Jack: As the Prime Minister said, there will be “unfettered access” between Scotland and Northern Ireland and indeed the rest of the United Kingdom.

Maritime Security

Stewart McDonald: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on maritime security off the coast of Scotland.

Douglas Ross: The Scottish Secretary and I regularly meet the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss a range of issues of importance to Scotland, including maritime security.

Stewart McDonald: Not least because of the Minister’s own constituency, he will understand that there is an obvious breach point in the high north of Scotland for adversaries to come into, as has happened before. Can he assure the House that the Scotland Office will be engaging fully with the upcoming integrated defence review, and will he agree to meet me to discuss some of the issues that are important to him and to the rest of Scotland?

Douglas Ross: I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman, and we can continue that discussion about the great investment by the UK Government into Scotland, and into Moray. Last week, we welcomed the first of nine P-8A aircraft, the “Pride of Moray”, which touched down at Kinloss. That is a huge investment by the UK Government and Boeing, and I also put on the record the outstanding work done by local firm Robertson, in building the Poseidon facility.

David Duguid: Will the Minister update the House on his discussions with the Ministry of Defence about the protection of fisheries, not just regarding enforcement, but also monitoring?

Douglas Ross: That is a devolved issue, and I know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and other Departments, are in continued dialogue about that with the Scottish Government and others. My hon. Friend’s longstanding commitment to the  fishing industry has again been raised in the House, and he continues to stand up for his constituents in Banff and Buchan on that subject, and on many others.

Taxation

Ranil Jayawardena: What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the use of its taxation powers.

Alister Jack: UK Government Ministers and officials have regular discussions with the Scottish Government on matters of importance, including the Scottish fiscal framework. That historic arrangement delivers one of the most powerful and accountable devolved Parliaments in the world, and it is up to the Scottish Government to use those powers wisely further to increase the economic prosperity of Scotland.

Ranil Jayawardena: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Scottish Government’s decision to make Scotland the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom is not only regrettable but yet another broken SNP promise?

Alister Jack: It goes without saying that I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is disappointing that Scottish taxpayers who earn more than £27,000 will pay more tax in Scotland than they would in the rest of the UK. Furthermore, taxpayers in Scotland will pay 41% income tax on earnings between £43,500 and £50,000, compared with just 20% in the rest of the UK. A police officer with 10 years’ experience—mid-30s; bringing up a family—will pay 21% more tax on earnings between £43,500 and £50,000 in Scotland than they would pay in the rest of the UK.

Marion Fellows: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that for the third consecutive year more than half of Scottish income tax payers will pay less tax than taxpayers in the UK? Will he explain to those UK taxpayers why his Government is ripping them off?

Alister Jack: That figure about less tax is correct—about 56% of Scots will pay less tax. [Interruption.] Before the Scottish nationalists become over-jubilant, I point out that that is the grand amount of 40p per week.

Leaving the EU

Ruth Jones: What recent assessment his Department has made of the (a) economic and (b) social effect on Scotland of the UK leaving the EU.

Douglas Ross: Now that we have left the European Union, we are free to determine our own future. We want 2020 to be a year of economic and social growth for Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Ruth Jones: The Secretary of State has stated in the Chamber that the UK internal market represents the majority of Scotland’s total export market, and it is therefore vital that he makes provision to develop  and strengthen that market. Will he confirm that the Government will prioritise the UK’s internal market over any future US-UK trade deal that the Prime Minister wants with Donald Trump?

Douglas Ross: I absolutely can because the UK internal market is so important for this country and Scotland. The Secretary of State has mentioned some figures today, and Scotland does 1.5 times more in trade with the rest of the UK than it does with the EU and the rest of the world combined.

Vicky Ford: The financial services sector is a major employer in my Chelmsford constituency, as well as in Scotland. Will my hon. Friend ensure that all parts of the Scottish economy are preserved and cared for in our future trade negotiations?

Douglas Ross: Absolutely. The future of Scotland’s economy and the UK economy will be buoyant, and as we leave the European Union we want to ensure that all our sectors continue to thrive. I assure my hon. Friend that we in the Scotland Office will do everything possible to facilitate those discussions.

Pete Wishart: The response we have heard from the Government Front Bench today might explain why the Minister has lost half his Scottish colleagues, why the SNP is at 51% in the polls and why the majority of the Scottish people now want independence. In the real world, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says that border checks are now inevitable for almost everybody because of the Government’s disastrous Brexit. How will this help Scottish business?

Douglas Ross: The hon. Gentleman mentions the real world, so let us look at the real world in Scotland where the SNP is in power: we have bridges that people cannot get across; we have hospitals that it cannot open; and we have an education system that is failing. That is the record that the Scottish Government and the SNP will have to go to the people in a little over 15 months’ time. I look forward to that election, when what the Scottish Government and the SNP have done to Scotland since 2007 will have an impact on the result.

Fisheries

Andrew Bridgen: What steps he is taking to support the Scottish fishing sector.

Douglas Ross: Thank you very much. I am busy today, Mr Speaker.
At the end of 2020, we automatically take control of our waters. This opens up a sea of opportunity for our fishing industry in Scotland, and across the UK. As I have said before, this Government will work tirelessly with our fishermen and coastal communities across Scotland.

Andrew Bridgen: Can my hon. Friend confirm that by becoming an independent coastal state once again we will be able to deliver a better deal for fishermen across the United Kingdom and that ultimately we will control who fishes in our waters?

Douglas Ross: I can confirm that we will no longer be bound by the EU’s outdated and unfair method for sharing fishing opportunities. We will set our own fishing quotas, based on science, and decide who can fish in our waters. I share my hon. Friend’s optimism for the future of our industry, and it is an optimism that I have heard time and again from fishermen and fishing communities the length and breadth of Scotland.

Steven Bonnar: Can the Secretary of State reveal whether the UK Government’s stated intention of agreeing a mechanism of co-operation within the EU on fishing will include an extended agreement on access to waters as part of an EU trade deal?

Douglas Ross: Clearly, we are in discussions about this, but we have a positive vision for our fishing industry in Scotland now that we have left the European Union. How does that reflect on the SNP’s vision for fishing in Scotland, which is to take us back into the European Union, to be shackled once again by the common fisheries policy? That is something that many Scots and many fishermen voted comprehensively to leave, but the SNP wants to put us right back in.

Budget

John Stevenson: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the forthcoming Budget.

Alister Jack: I have regular discussions with all my Cabinet colleagues on issues important to Scotland’s economy, including the forthcoming Budget in March. The Government will deliver a Budget for Scotland’s businesses and Scotland’s people. We will set out ambitious plans to unleash Britain’s potential and level up across the nations and regions of the UK.

John Stevenson: Given the close economic relationship between the south of Scotland and the north of England, particularly within the borderlands region, will the Minister make representations to the Chancellor on and give his support to a freeport at the Carlisle Lake District airport?

Alister Jack: I welcome the recent freeports announcement, and I have no doubt that freeports will unleash the potential of our proud historic ports, boosting and regenerating communities across the UK. I and other Ministers on the Front Bench—the Chancellor is here—have heard my hon. Friend’s early representations on behalf of his airport and his area. Not only is he a great champion for the borderlands, but he is a great champion for the Carlisle Lake District airport.

Alan Brown: Page 64 of the 2015 statement of funding policy document confirms that HS2 should have 100% Barnett consequentials for Scotland. Will the Secretary of State ask for those Barnett consequentials, roughly £750 million in relation to what is being spent on HS2, to be delivered in the Budget?

Alister Jack: There already has been a Barnett consequential relating to HS2 spending. In the next spending round, we will see what money is allocated to the Department for Transport. That money will have a Barnett consequential.

Wendy Chamberlain: Over the weekend, Kingsbarns distillery in my constituency won the “Best Lowlands Scotch, 12 years and Under” award at the world whisky awards. However, the impact of US tariffs continues to impede the growth of the Scotch whisky industry in my constituency and across Scotland. Will the forthcoming Budget include provisions to help our distilleries to compete internationally, despite those stifling tariffs?

Alister Jack: I know that the hon. Lady has a lot of experience of this, having formerly worked for Diageo. The 25% tariffs on malt whisky are a consequence of the Boeing-Airbus dispute between the EU and the USA. In the next carousel, by having useful negotiations on a US trade deal, we want to get those tariffs removed.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Julian Lewis: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 February.

Boris Johnson: The whole House will want to join me in sending our deepest sympathies to all those affected by the weekend’s flooding. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has announced the activation of the Government’s emergency Bellwin scheme to provide financial support for qualifying affected areas in the north of England, and we continue to work closely with our partners to help those affected and, above all, to keep people safe.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall hold further such meetings later today.

Security, Defence and Foreign Policy Review

Julian Lewis: If he will take steps to ensure that the security, defence and foreign policy review is completed before the comprehensive spending review.

Boris Johnson: We will continue to transform the UK economy through the Budget in March and the comprehensive spending review later this year. The timing of that integrated review will be announced shortly.

Julian Lewis: I am grateful for that reply. May I urge the Prime Minister to recall what happened to the last combined security and defence review, which was done within a straitjacket of fiscal neutrality? It meant that every extra pound spent on cyber or security was a pound to be cut from the conventional armed forces. Therefore, will he try to ensure that the next attempt at a combined security and defence review will not face such a straitjacket and will be concluded before rather than after the comprehensive spending review?

Boris Johnson: I understand very well the point that my right hon. Friend makes. I can assure him that the integrated review will be the deepest review of Britain’s security, defence and foreign policy since the cold war. I can also assure him that by transforming this country’s economy and by raising productivity, we will ensure that both defence and security are amply provided for.

Engagements

Jeremy Corbyn: I join the Prime Minister in expressing sympathy and support to the victims of flooding and thank the Environment Agency and all the emergency services that are doing their best to help people.
Our thoughts are also with those who suffer from the coronavirus and with the Chinese community in this country, who are, I am sorry to say, facing increasingly alarming levels of racism within our country. As this virus spreads, I also thank public health workers who are helping those affected and raising awareness of the danger of the virus.
Does the Prime Minister think that someone who came to this country at the age of five, was the victim of county lines grooming and compelled to carry drugs, was released five years ago and has never reoffended deserves to be deported?

Boris Johnson: I think the whole country would agree that, while I cannot comment on individual cases, it is entirely right that foreign national offenders should be deported from this country in accordance with the law.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Government have learned absolutely nothing from the Windrush scandal. This cruel and callous Government are trying to mislead the British people into thinking that they are solely deporting foreign nationals who are guilty of murder, rape and other very serious offences. This is clearly not the case. Take the example of a young black boy who came to the UK aged five and is now being deported after serving time for a drugs offence. If there was a case of a young white boy with blond hair who later dabbled in class A drugs and conspired with a friend to beat up a journalist, would the Prime Minister deport that boy; or is it one rule for young black boys from the Caribbean and another for white boys from the United States?

Boris Johnson: Quite frankly, I think the right hon. Gentleman demeans himself and besmirches the reputation of the Windrush generation, who came to this country to work in our public services, to teach our children and to make lives better for the people of this country. He has no right to conflate them with the foreign national offenders we are deporting today.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Windrush generation have been disgracefully treated by a Government who deliberately created a hostile environment. While the Government were fighting to deport people who legally came to this country as children, the Foreign Secretary refused to tell the family of Harry Dunn the reason the US is blocking the extradition of the woman who is alleged to have killed him. I now ask the Prime Minister straight: is Anne Sacoolas being shielded from justice because she is a former CIA officer?

Boris Johnson: The whole House will know that the Foreign Secretary and I, and the Government at every level, have tirelessly sought the extradition of Anne Sacoolas for justice in this country, and we will continue to do so.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is widely reported that Anne Sacoolas is in fact a CIA operative. Now we know that the Foreign Secretary misled the Dunn family, who are being denied justice by the US Government, will the Prime Minister commit to his removal from office tomorrow in his reshuffle?

Boris Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Foreign Office has been told that Anne Sacoolas was notified to the UK Government as a spouse with no official role. We will continue, without fear or favour, to seek justice for Harry Dunn and his family, and we will continue to seek the extradition of Anne Sacoolas from the United States.

Jeremy Corbyn: This morning, Charlotte Charles, Harry’s mum, said: “We thought we had bridged the gap with the Government. But they have not been honest with us”. This is only the latest case of our country’s one-sided extradition treaty with the USA. This lopsided treaty means the US can request extradition in circumstances that Britain cannot. While the US continues to deny justice to Harry Dunn, will the Prime Minister commit today to seeking an equal and balanced extradition relationship with the United States?

Boris Johnson: To be frank, I think the right hon. Gentleman has a point in his characterisation of our extradition arrangements with the United States. I do think that elements of that relationships are unbalanced, and it is certainly worth looking at, but that is totally different from the case of Harry Dunn and Anne Sacoolas. We continue to seek the extradition of Anne Sacoolas to face justice in this country.

Jeremy Corbyn: It has everything to do with the relationship with the USA that Anne Sacoolas has not been extradited back to Britain, because the US refuses to do it because of this lopsided treaty. I am glad the Prime Minister at least acknowledges that point about the treaty. This deep disparity with the US is about to be laid bare, when the courts decide whether the WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange will be extradited to the US on charges of espionage and for exposing war crimes, including the murder of civilians and large-scale corruption. Does the Prime Minister agree with the parliamentary report that is going to the Council of Europe that this extradition should be opposed and the rights of journalists and whistleblowers upheld for the good of us all?

Boris Johnson: I am not going to comment on any individual case, but it is obvious that the rights of journalists and whistleblowers should be upheld, and this Government will clearly continue to do that.

Paul Howell: My wife is a volunteer with the local branch of the Samaritans, and my right hon. Friend will know what good work they do in helping to keep people safe online in Sedgefield and the rest of the UK. Does he agree that today’s announcement that we are putting Ofcom at the helm  of a strong regulatory regime shows that we are delivering on our commitment to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. As we deliver gigabit broadband to every part of this country, including to the people of Sedgefield, we will also ensure that the UK is the safest place to be online.

Ian Blackford: In northern Syria, displaced women and their children are literally freezing to death. There are reports of babies dying as a result of the extreme conditions, and 45,000 people remain stranded with nowhere to go. The Syrian war is considered to have caused the biggest wave of displacement since the second world war. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what responsibility his Government have taken for this humanitarian crisis?

Boris Johnson: As I think the whole House will know, and as I have said several times in the House, the UK leads the world in supporting humanitarian relief efforts in Syria. This country has committed £3.2 billion to that cause.

Ian Blackford: My question was about the children who are literally freezing to death. That was not an answer from the Prime Minister.
In 2017, as Foreign Secretary, this Prime Minister enacted a policy of accepting the Syrian dictator Assad’s rule over the country. Assad has delivered death and destruction to his people—a man who has gassed his own civilians. The humanitarian situation has reached crisis point, and there are now fears of all-out war. Is the message that the Prime Minister wants to send from the House today that the UK Government are washing their hands of the Syrian people and that he is content for Assad’s regime to continue enacting these atrocities?

Boris Johnson: I really think the right hon. Gentleman needs to consult his memory better. He would find that this country and this Government have persistently called for the end of the Assad regime, and indeed have led the world in denouncing the cruelty of the regime towards Assad’s own people. That has continuously been the policy of the British Government.

Dean Russell: Will the Prime Minister join me in supporting a new initiative I am launching in my constituency to train mental health first aiders in schools, workplaces and the community throughout the constituency to tackle loneliness and challenge mental health stigma, and may I ask whether he could find time in his diary to join me at the launch?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing to champion mental health services in Watford. We are massively increasing support for good mental health in schools, and, if I can, I will do my best to attend the launch event.

Vicky Foxcroft: After three years of extensive evidence-gathering and research, on 26 March the Youth Violence Commission will publish its final recommendations. The overwhelming verdict of victims, youth workers, community leaders  and other stakeholders is that short-term solutions do not work. Violence reduction units are a welcome first step, but they need long-term funding and leadership from the top. Will the Prime Minister commit to that funding, and will he attend our report launch to hear directly from victims and experts how we can get to grips with this crisis?

Boris Johnson: I think the hon. Lady is right: we have to do both, which is why we are putting £200 million into the Youth Endowment Fund as well as supporting violence reduction units. We are also putting 20,000 police on the streets of this country and giving them the powers, which the Leader of the Opposition opposes, to take knives off the streets with stop and search.

Damien Moore: The Prime Minister has made transport connectivity a priority for the Government. Does he agree that connecting my constituency of Southport with Preston through the Burscough curve link would not only give my constituents more access to the rail network, but help us to unleash our economic potential?

Boris Johnson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign for the restoration of the Burscough curves. That sounds to me like a great idea. What he needs to do is put forward a costed business plan, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will look at it very carefully.

Sharon Hodgson: Does the Prime Minister agree with me and 10,800 of my constituents who signed petitions, that the building of a gasification plant in Washington would be terrible for the people of Sunderland, due to the public health concerns, and air quality, and would indeed be a blot on the landscape of Sunderland, and that now as a frequent visitor to Sunderland, I’m sure he shares my concerns on this matter? Will he therefore support me and my constituents, who oppose the building of this plant?

Boris Johnson: I will certainly look into the matter that the hon. Lady raises. We will ensure, of course, that if there is a problem with the gasification plant that she describes, Sunderland will continue to prosper and to lead the UK economy.

Ian Levy: Blyth has the potential to become one of the most strategically important ports in the UK for the export of renewable technology as well as wind turbines. Would my right hon. Friend consider visiting Blyth, where I am sure he would get a warm Northern welcome—

Boris Johnson: rose—

Ian Levy: —and see for himself the strength of Blyth to become a freeport?

Lindsay Hoyle: I think the Prime Minister had the answer ready.

Boris Johnson: The answer was in the question, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the potential of Blyth, although I must remind him that the allocation of freeports will be decided in an entirely fair and transparent way.

Alex Norris: Every day, an estimated 280 shopworkers will be victims of violence at work. At my local Co-op, a staff member was hit with a glass bottle. The Co-op is a good employer, and it wants this to stop, so it and other local retailers engaged with the Government’s call for evidence on violence towards shop staff. Seven and a half months later, they are awaiting a response. Prime Minister, will you commit today to publishing your response to the call for evidence, and will you meet me and a group of shopworkers who have experienced violence at work to hear about what happened to them?

Boris Johnson: I certainly will make that undertaking to the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he has raised this matter. We should not tolerate crimes of violence against shopworkers or indeed anybody else. I therefore find it paradoxical that the leader of his party is soft on the deportation of serious violent offenders.

Alan Mak: This year, we mark the 75th anniversaries of VE-day and VJ-day. As we honour those who have served our country, will my right hon. Friend outline how his new Office for Veterans Affairs is giving our veterans and their families the support they deserve?

Boris Johnson: Our new Office for Veterans Affairs is helping veterans to transition to new jobs and to secure homes. A discount railcard will be rolled out by Armistice day, and veterans will get guaranteed interviews for civil service jobs so that we have more veterans bringing their talents to government.

Deidre Brock: The Prime Minister’s junior Scotland Office Minister told the National Farmers Union last week that substandard food would be allowed into the UK under a US trade deal, but that it would have to be labelled as such. The Prime Minister has denied this in the past, so who is telling the truth and which of them does not know what is coming?

Boris Johnson: I can assure the hon. Lady that the UK has and will continue to have the highest standards in the world for our food.

Chris Green: In Greater Manchester, frontline police officers are increasingly having to resort to using a pen and paper because of the failing iOPS computer system. This is putting the police at risk and undermining their ability to protect residents and vulnerable children. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister intervene to solve this problem?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is, I am afraid, entirely right. We know that there are concerns about this system, and that is why I have asked the Minister for Crime, Policing and the Fire Service, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), to ask Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for an independent review of the operation of the system. We will ensure that my hon. Friend is kept informed.

Gareth Thomas: Northwick Park Hospital, which serves my constituents, has not met its four-hour A&E target since August 2014.  It has been starved of capital investment and it is short of intensive treatment unit beds. It is expected to have close to a £100 million deficit by the end of the financial year—one of the highest in the NHS. When does the Prime Minister expect Northwick Park to receive a little Government love and attention?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but as he will know, the highest-ever number of people attended A&E in this country last month—2 million people. The demand is exceptional, and I pay tribute to the work of NHS staff. As he knows, we in this Government are responding with a record investment in the NHS of £34 billion, and we are recruiting 50,000 more nurses, which will help to deal with that crisis.

Imran Ahmad Khan: In the past week, Storm Ciara has wreaked havoc along West Yorkshire’s Calder Valley, affecting the constituencies of Members across the House. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister seek to find time to visit my constituency? Horbury Bridge, where “Onward Christians Soldiers” was penned, has been acutely affected. Will he see for himself the terrible damage done to people’s homes, lives and businesses? Will he tread where the saints of our communities and emergency services have trod and continue to toil undivided towards recovery?

Boris Johnson: I pay tribute to the emergency services for what they are doing in my hon. Friend’s constituency and, indeed, in all flood-affected areas. As he knows, we have activated the Bellwin scheme to protect homeowners, and we are putting £4 billion into flood defences. I certainly will do what I can to take up his offer to visit his constituency and see the scene for myself.

Kirsten Oswald: The new daily allowance for the unelected and unaccountable peers being stuffed into the House of Lords by the Prime Minister is set to rise to £323. The monthly allowance for a single person over 25 on universal credit is £317.82. Is that the levelling up that the Prime Minister keeps talking about?

Boris Johnson: I hate agreeing with these people, but I do find it odd that the House of Lords has chosen to do that, but it is a decision for it.

Pauline Latham: The Prime Minister was instrumental in banning the trade in ivory in this country. Will he be equally decisive in getting rid of the importation of hunting trophies into this country, particularly of endangered animals?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I thank my hon. Friend for her campaign against illegal wildlife trading and trophy hunting, and we mean to end the import into this country of trophies hunted elsewhere.

Richard Thomson: In 2018, Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of Vladimir Putin’s former deputy Finance Minister, paid £20,000 for lunch with the then Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, who we believe is soon to be ennobled. Will the Prime Minister remind the House once more why  his Government have yet to publish the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report into alleged Russian interference in UK politics?

Boris Johnson: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows very well, the report will be published as soon as the Intelligence and Security Committee is reconvened. As I have told the House several times, those of a conspiratorial cast of mind will be disappointed by its findings.

Adam Afriyie: May I commend the Prime Minister for his belief in Britain and the massive boost to infrastructure investment around the country? However, the cost of landing fees at Heathrow airport is £25 per passenger, and those fees will rise with a third runway, leading to Heathrow becoming the least competitive airport on the entire planet. Given the delays and the escalating costs, does the Prime Minister agree that it may well be time to review progress and perhaps to deploy the bulldozers elsewhere in the country?

Boris Johnson: The House of Commons voted effectively to give outline planning consent to the third runway. It was supported by people across the Chamber—not by me, as it happens. I wait to see the outcome of the various legal processes that are currently under way to see whether the promoters of the third runway can satisfy their legal obligations on air quality and, indeed, noise pollution.

Bridget Phillipson: Since 2015, the number of GPs working in Sunderland has fallen by 16%—much higher than the national average. After almost a decade of Tory control, our GP services are inadequate and getting worse, so who does the Prime Minister hold responsible?

Boris Johnson: We are, of course, responsible, and we take full responsibility, but overall GP numbers are up and we are now recruiting 6,000 more. We are able to do that because we are running a sound economy and investing massively in our NHS across the whole country.

Robert Courts: As the coronavirus hits the headlines every day, will the Prime Minister join me in thanking and paying tribute to the supreme professionalism of those at Public Health England and, in my area, to RAF Brize Norton for bringing home people who have been affected? Their work often goes unremarked, but it has the admiration of us all.

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend puts it beautifully, and I salute everybody involved in bringing home the victims and potential victims of coronavirus for the difficulties and risks they face. Indeed, our NHS has so far done an outstanding job in preparing and informing the country.

Edward Davey: When Kevin Simpson’s partner of over 12 years died and his two children lost their mother, the family received no bereavement support payments at all. Because the parents were unmarried, the law denied that support to the two grieving children. The High Court ruled last Friday that this breached the children’s human rights,  so when will the Government obey the rule of law and legislate to respond both to that ruling and to the similar ruling by the Supreme Court in the McLaughlin case in 2018? Will there be no further delay so that we can start supporting the thousands of similar children across our country every year who lose their mother or father?

Boris Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman has raised this with me before, and I have undertaken to meet him on the matter. We will certainly look at the case he mentions to see what exactly our response should be. He is right to draw attention to this injustice, and we will do all we can to remedy it.

Jacob Young: On Thursday last week, two people were stabbed in Redcar in broad daylight. Another person was injured in a horrific knife crime on Saturday evening outside a busy nightclub. Figures released by the Ministry of Justice in January show that the Cleveland force area has the highest number of knife and offensive weapon offences per head of population in all of England and Wales. What additional support can my right hon. Friend give to Cleveland police to tackle this problem, and when will we start to see more police on the streets of Teesside?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this. Knife crime is intolerable, and its recent rise must be combated. That is why we brought in knife crime prevention orders, which give police the powers, where they suspect a knife crime is about to be committed, to make the interventions that are needed. That is why we are putting 20,000 more police on our streets, with the encouragement and the political support they need to carry out stop and search.

Daniel Zeichner: The Oxford-Cambridge so-called expressway is a 20th-century roadbuilding solution to a 21st-century challenge, and at the election Labour rightly pledged to scrap it. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has caught up with us. Will he announce today whether the expressway has finally been put to rest and scrapped?

Boris Johnson: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait and contain his impatience until the Budget, when he will learn more about the national infrastructure plan.

Martin Vickers: I support the Prime Minister’s decision yesterday to go ahead with HS2, although I have to tell him there is little enthusiasm among my constituents because it does nothing to improve connectivity to Cleethorpes. To build up enthusiasm among the people of Cleethorpes, may I urge him to instruct London North Eastern Railway to reintroduce the direct train service from Cleethorpes through to King’s Cross; to make the Gainsborough-Brigg-Cleethorpes service, which at present runs one day a week, into a seven-day service; to manufacture the rails at Scunthorpe; and, of course, to reopen Suggitts Lane level crossing?

Boris Johnson: The voice of Cleethorpes has been heard, and my hon. Friend makes a vivid and compelling case. As I stood up to answer, the Chancellor whispered in my ear that we will certainly be looking at it in the infrastructure review.

Seema Malhotra: The prosperous future of our young people all too often depends on their family wellbeing and their school readiness, which requires investment in early years. Does the Prime Minister regret the Conservative cuts to around 1,000 Sure Start centres, including in my constituency? Will he commit to greater funding and support for early years development, particularly in our most deprived communities?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady raises an important point, and this is why we are putting record sums into early years funding—£14 billion is going into education. It is under this Government that people will see the biggest improvements, because it is under this Government that we have a robust, strong, dynamic economy—the third fastest growing in the G7. We are able to make those investments in early years precisely because of our sensible management of the economy.

Lee Anderson: Does the Prime Minister agree that the private finance initiative deals signed by the last Labour Government to build hospitals such as   King’s Mill in Ashfield, at a cost of £1 million a week, are nothing short of a national scandal? Will he please ensure that this never happens again?

Boris Johnson: It was one of the many scandals of the last Labour Government. From memory, the PFI deals that they did saddled the taxpayer with £80 billion-worth of debts in exchange for £12 billion-worth of hospital assets. That is how Labour runs government. That is how Labour runs the economy. Let’s not let it happen again.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Prime Minister bring to an end the sickening outrage of a witch hunt against former police officers who served Ulster through the heat of the troubles and who will now face the most odious prosecutions for non-criminal misconduct? That would not be tolerated in this part of the United Kingdom and it should not be tolerated in mine.

Boris Johnson: We will make sure that we give support for all those who face unnecessary prosecution, and I am well aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Point of Order

Barbara Keeley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has started legal action against the Department of Health and Social Care for its failure to move 2,200 autistic people and people with learning disabilities out of inappropriate in-patient units. Separately, we have the Government’s response to the learning disabilities mortality review, a review that has shockingly found that people with learning disabilities are dying, on average, 25 years earlier than the rest of the population. It seems that improving care for people with learning disabilities and autistic people is not a priority for this Government, who have made no statement in the House on these important issues so far. Have you been given an indication that a Minister plans to make a statement on these important issues?

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice on this important matter. It is not a point of order for the Chair; it is for Departments to make statements. I am sure that people will have listened to what she has had to say, but it is for others, certainly not for me, to come forward with a statement.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill (Business of the House)

Motion made and Question proposed,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill—
Timetable
(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) If, following proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, a legislative grand committee withholds consent to the Bill or any Clause or Schedule of the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill, the House shall proceed to Reconsideration of the Bill without any Question being put, unless a Minister of the Crown nominates a future day for Reconsideration.
(5) If, following Reconsideration of the Bill:
(a) a legislative grand committee withholds consent to any Clause or Schedule of the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill (but does not withhold consent to the whole Bill and, accordingly, the Bill is amended in accordance with Standing Order No. 83N(6)), and
(b) a Minister of the Crown indicates his or her intention to move a minor or technical amendment to the Bill, the House shall proceed to consequential Consideration of the Bill without any Question being put.
(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph 17(a) of this Order.
(7) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(9) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(10) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (11) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order.
Subsequent stages
(12) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(13) Paragraphs (2) to (9) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (12) of this Order.
Reasons Committee
(14) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.
Miscellaneous
(15) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(16) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(17) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(18) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(19) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.
(20) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(21) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on that Bill on that day.
(b) Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(Robert Buckland.)

Lindsay Hoyle: I should inform the House that I have selected a manuscript amendment to the motion in the name of Alistair Carmichael.

Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move a manuscript amendment, in paragraph (6), after sub-paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the chairman or Speaker for separate decision;”.
The Secretary of State will be aware that the business motion that he has just moved, without any explanation whatsoever, replicates the provisions of Standing Order 83D faithfully in every respect bar one, which is that it omits the contents of Standing Order 83D(2)(c), which provides that at the conclusion of proceedings the Question may be put on
“any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the chair for separate decision”.
The effect of the omission of that provision from the business motion before the House is that if the debate continues until the conclusion of the time allowed in the business motion, there will be no Division on any amendments moved in Committee.
At the very least, the House is entitled to hear an explanation from those on the Treasury Bench why we should see your power restricted in that way, Mr Speaker. It may be that ultimately this is all academic—it may be that we conclude proceedings before the expiry of time, or it may be that there will simply be no amendment that anybody wishes to move at the conclusion of proceedings—but there remains an important point of principle at stake, which is that surely we should hear the debate first before we make decisions of that sort and that if it is the will of the House at the conclusion of the time allowed, then you, Mr Speaker, should have the power to put any Question from the Chair. It is entirely regrettable that the Secretary of State, in moving the motion, did not offer any explanation to the House why the Government, through us, should seek to fetter your power in this way.
It is worth bearing in mind that although what the Government are doing today in bringing forward a Bill and going through all its stages in one day is not by any means unusual, it is still quite extraordinary. The Government rely on co-operation from all parts of the House to do that. They have had that co-operation, so  why do they now seek to restrict the power that you, Mr Speaker, have to call Divisions at the end of the Committee stage?

Robert Buckland: I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who speaks with years of experience, shall we say, as somebody who had direct responsibility, at least partly, for this issue during his time in coalition. I simply say to him that although I am not accusing him of having an unreasonable approach, we do view the business motion as meeting the test of reasonableness, bearing in mind that these are exceptional circumstances and we would not depart from normal proceedings lightly. We want to make sure that the time we have for debate is maximised, which is important when we bear in mind the issue of Divisions. For those reasons, we judge it appropriate on this occasion to depart from normal proceedings.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman will probably not accept the explanation I give him, but at least the very fact that he has moved this manuscript amendment—although I note that we have not heard the same objection from other parts of the House—has made the Government explain their position. These are exceptional circumstances, and for that reason I urge him respectfully to withdraw the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 51, Noes 316.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Second Reading

Robert Buckland: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Twice in the past few months, we have seen appalling and senseless attacks on members of the public by terrorist offenders. At Fishmongers’ Hall on 30 November last year, two bright and promising young lives were cut heartbreakingly short. The perpetrator, Usman Khan, had been released automatically halfway through a 16-year sentence for preparing terrorist acts. That tragedy was made so much more poignant by the fact that the victims were dedicated to the rehabilitation of offenders and were helping people to get their lives back on track.
The attack in Streatham on 2 February this year came as a stark reminder of the risks when these sorts of offenders are let out automatically before they have served their full sentence in prison.

Michael Fabricant: A number of people may question why we are rushing through this business in one day today, so may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend, if the business were not completed today and the Bill therefore not enabled as an Act, would it result in terrorists being released early in the immediate future?

Robert Buckland: The simple answer is yes; I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
I was telling the House about the events in Streatham. Sudesh Amman had been released just one week before the attack, halfway through a sentence of three years and four months for offences related to distributing or promoting material intended to stir up religious hatred. The automatic nature of his release meant that there was no parole oversight and no decision on whether he posed a risk to the public. No one could prevent his release. It is purely thanks to the swift intervention of our incredible police officers that he did not go on to commit even more harm before he was stopped with necessary force. The reality is that we face an unprecedented threat from terrorist offenders who are willing to commit random violence without any fear of the consequences.

Tobias Ellwood: I welcome the work that my right hon. and learned Friend has done in this area over the last few weeks and that he is bringing the Bill before the House today. Will he concede that this form of jihadi extremism and the threat that it has posed has now been around us for almost 20 years, since the horrible attacks of 9/11 and, of course, Bali in 2002? I absolutely welcome the extra funding for our counter-terrorism police and rehabilitation and probation services—this is all very good news—but ultimately we have to ask ourselves why these people were indoctrinated in the first place. Does he agree that we need to do more to remove the harmful online content that is used so much to attract people to the dark place they go to?

Robert Buckland: My right hon. Friend speaks with particular personal experience of the Bali atrocity, and he is right to talk about the long-term nature of the threat, but it is a threat that changes and evolves, and this Government will be as fleet of foot as possible in responding to it. He will be glad to note that we are working at pace to deal with and remove inappropriate and hateful online content. The Home Secretary is by my side today to emphasise, in the most eloquent possible way, the joint approach that she and I, and our respective Departments—together with the security services and the police—are taking with regard to the first duty of government: protecting the public. It is a grave responsibility from which we will not shirk, and we say that enough is enough.

Desmond Swayne: I am very glad about the tone my right hon. and learned Friend is taking. Were this measure to be challenged in our courts and the Government were to lose, that would be merely declaratory. But if it made its way to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the Government were to lose there, the ministerial code would require him to abide by treaty law. Would he then entertain the prospect of a derogation from the convention on human rights?

Robert Buckland: I believe that the declaration that I make on the front of the Bill speaks for itself—

Bob Neill: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Robert Buckland: Well, I have not finished developing the point yet, but I will of course give way to my eager hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, in time.
This is a Bill on which I have made the following statement:
“In my view the provisions of the…Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.”
I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). I am not going to anticipate litigation in domestic courts or in Strasbourg, but I will repeat for the benefit of the record that it is my firm view that this Bill does not engage the provisions of article 7 of the European convention on human rights, because it relates to the way in which the sentence is administered, not a change in the nature of the penalty itself. I am grateful to him for allowing me to say that at this point.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way, because this is an important point. Will he confirm that, in coming to that conclusion and making that certification, he has taken the advice of senior Treasury counsel, and also that the case law has made it quite clear that the administration of a sentence is not part of the penalty? Finally, will he confirm that even were there to be successful litigation—which I do not believe will be the case—it would result only in a declaration of incompatibility and could not strike down primary legislation?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that there is no power to strike down the primary legislation. I am afraid that I will not indulge him in a direct answer on the nature of advice that may or may not have been tendered, and he knows the  reasons why. However, I reassure him that all the proper mechanisms have been employed and engaged in the preparation of the Bill and that on the basis of all the information received, I was able—with high certainty—to make the declaration on the frontispiece.

John Hayes: My right hon. and learned Friend will remember that we worked together on these matters when I was in the Government. He is right to speak about the metamorphosis of terrorism. Will he confirm—indeed, these provisions underpin this—that we must never let the persistent and perverse advocacy of the rights of murderous individuals compromise either the work of our security services or public faith in the rule of law?

Robert Buckland: My right hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience, as we worked together on the Bill that became the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which rightly struck the balance between the need to protect the public and the need to make sure that the rule of law was respected.
That gives me a chance to warm to a theme that I make no apology—

Seema Malhotra: rose—

Robert Buckland: I will give way in a moment. I am warming to a theme—let me warm!
The theme is this: in our fight against terrorism—in our determination to protect the public against those who spread hate, division, death and injury, irrespective of what might motivate them, because we know that we have a cohort of different types of terrorist—we are defending something of value. We are defending a democratic, free society. We are defending the rule of law. We are defending the values of this place and, indeed, the values of all the people we have the honour and privilege of representing. That is something worth defending. By using due process, we mark ourselves out as distinct from, better than and different from those who seek to divide us.

Bill Cash: Is my right hon. and learned Friend in receipt of advice from the Law Officers on this question? I say that because whatever arguments he may address with regard to compatibility and his statement on the front of the Bill, the reality is that this could easily end up in the courts if they can possibly manufacture an argument. I want to be quite clear that his advice relates to action in the courts and not just to incompatibility.

Robert Buckland: I can assure my hon. Friend that all the usual processes were followed. I am not going to go into the weeds of what the Law Officers might have said. We know that they have a particular function when it comes to the necessary clearances for the introduction of a Bill. I can assure him that those processes have been followed and that the issues that he rightly outlines—and, indeed, presages through his amendments—are very much uppermost in our considerations.

Seema Malhotra: Recent events have indeed shown the need for a review through this legislation, which I certainly support and which has the appropriate safeguards and implementation measures that will be debated today.
The Lord Chancellor made a point about the victims. Somebody who had done work experience in my office was a witness on that day as they were working at Fishmongers’ Hall. The impact not just on those who were injured or killed, but on those who were there and their families, has been tremendous, and continues.
The provisions in the Bill change the release point for offenders who have committed a relevant terrorism offence and refer those offenders to the Parole Board at the two-thirds point of the sentence. I think we can understand and acknowledge that the resources available to the police and probation are also a critical part of this. A change in legislation will not be enough. Is the Lord Chancellor also committed to making sure that the resources required through the justice system will be in place to make any change effective on the ground?

Robert Buckland: Indeed, I pay tribute to everybody who was not only involved with but witnessed those awful events at Fishmongers’ Hall.
The hon. Lady and I served together on the Justice Committee for some time, and I know that she has a long-term interest in these issues. She is right to ask about resources. Some weeks ago, when it was announced that we would be introducing a counter-terrorism Bill, extra resources of £90 million for counter-terrorism activity were announced, additional to the overall package of £900 million of support for counter-terrorism. With regard to what we are doing with probation and the interventions that she referred to, again we announced extra resources, with a doubling in the number of specialist probation officers and the introduction of more expert psychiatric and imam involvement. She can rest assured that whatever resources are needed to deal with this issue, we will devote them to this line of important, intensive work.

Theo Clarke: The Staffordshire-born convicted terrorist Usman Khan was let out of prison early on licence. Last November, less than a year after his release, he killed two young people near London Bridge. Does the Secretary of State agree that this illustrates why this Bill is so important to protect the public in my constituency and across the UK and to ensure that the most dangerous criminals serve the prison time that they deserve?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend rightly points out the sad local connection to that appalling case last year. I know that she shares my—and indeed, I think, the whole House’s—commitment to maximum effort when it comes to protecting the public. It is clear that we must put a stop to the current arrangements whereby a dangerous terrorist can be released from prison by automatic process of law before the end of their sentence, so we must do so as quickly as possible.

Maria Miller: I warmly welcome the legislation that has been put before the House today. The Secretary of State is talking about resources. Will he outline any estimates he has made of the number of individuals who might be covered by this legislation so that we can perhaps understand the impact that it could have had on our police forces if those individuals had been released from prison early?

Robert Buckland: The number of offenders, either terrorist offenders or offenders who have committed offences with a terrorist link, is about 50. That does not  sound like a large cohort, but in this situation of extreme gravity, we cannot afford to allow any further incidents to happen. I have spoken about the need to minimise risk; that does not mean that we can eliminate risk. That is why this emergency measure is, in my judgment and the judgment of the Government, absolutely necessary if we are to meet the concerns of my right hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Members.

Theresa May: My right hon. and learned Friend raises the issue of risk. He and the Government are absolutely right to be addressing the question of the automatic early release of terrorist offenders, but terrorist offenders will still be released at some point. That is why rehabilitation—the work that is done both in prison and when they are out of prison—is so important. There have been many efforts at this over the years, but, as recent incidents have shown, not always with success. Does he agree that we will never deal with the issue of terrorism until we deal with the ideology that drives it? Will he reassure me that the Government are making extra efforts to find new paths to ensure that we can turn people away from the extremism and terrorism that takes other people’s lives?

Robert Buckland: My right hon. Friend speaks with unparalleled experience of these issues, both as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister. I can assure her—I will develop these issues later in my speech—that there is a constant self-questioning among those responsible for these programmes to make sure that they are properly calibrated, that they understand the particular drivers that compel people to commit these acts and that the distinctions between the different types of offender are fully understood; from her own case experience she will know of myriad motivations. Rather than taking a blanket approach, a case-by-case analysis is very much at the heart of how we approach these matters.

Henry Smith: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right that this legislation ending the automatic halfway point of release is the correct thing to do. The Parole Board obviously still has a very important role in this process. What reform of the Parole Board does he envisage to make it more accountable, because that is a key aspect of ensuring that citizens are kept safe from those who would cause them harm?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend will be reassured that a lot of ongoing work continues with regard to the role of the Parole Board. Very recently, reforms were introduced that allow me to ask the Parole Board to reconsider important decisions that it makes with regard to the release, or early release, of offenders. A tailored review is currently being undertaken to make sure that its work is as practically effective as possible.
In our manifesto, we committed to a root-and-branch review, to ensure that victims are aware and as involved as possible from the outset and that the sharing of intelligence and information between the security services, the police and the Parole Board is as thorough and comprehensive as possible, so that the fullest and most appropriate assessment of risk can be made. In the area of counter-terrorism, nothing can be more important than ensuring that that intelligence is shared and that those who handle it have the appropriate clearances and expertise to make the necessary assessment.

Kate Green: The Lord Chancellor rightly mentions the need for resources to support this new legislation, because most of these offenders will eventually be released, albeit later, into the community. The issue is not just one of resources; it is also one of process and expertise, because the recall provisions that are in place now could have been of use in the cases that we have seen in recent months. Can he assure me that the Government are also looking at training and process and that any reforms needed—for example, to recall processes—will be properly put in place to support this legislation?

Robert Buckland: The hon. Lady, with whom I served on the Justice Committee, is right to talk about risk assessment and the recall process. She knows that the recall process can be triggered on arrest, and certainly on charge, and that is regularly done in the normal course of events. When it comes to multi-agency public protection arrangements, I think she will note with pleasure that, only three weeks ago, the Home Secretary and I ordered a review to be conducted by Jonathan Hall QC, the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. He will look at MAPPA with regard to this high-risk, high-level sector of the cohort, to ensure that we are getting it right and that the appropriate expertise is deployed at the right time to make the finest judgment with regard to risk.

Bob Seely: If I understand it correctly, there are about 220 people serving time for terrorist offences, 50 of whom will be affected by this legislation. Is that because those 50 are up for imminent release within the next few months? Does this legislation in principle apply to all 220 people in prison for terrorist-related offences?

Robert Buckland: The cohort of around 50 are due for automatic early release; the rest will be subject to Parole Board assessment. Different types of sentence are available. We are talking about people on standard determinate sentences. Other types of sentence include extended determinate sentences. Some may still be on the historical IPP—imprisonment for public protection—regime, and there are also sentences for offenders of particular concern, or SOPC. Forgive me for the alphabet soup, but I am afraid that criminal justice sentencing legislation has not been the easiest matter for us to deal with, either as legislators or when I was a practitioner in this area.

Julian Lewis: I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for giving way; he is being hugely generous. Does he accept that, while a lot of these people are terrorists and criminals, a significant number of them are clearly insane? The people who were in jail with the latest perpetrator said that that individual was plainly off his head. He had a history of drug abuse, and mind-altering substances clearly played a role. Why is it that if people are secular and insane, they will be locked up indefinitely, but if they can ascribe this to some sort of religious motive, we feel we have to give them a finite sentence and release them, when they might run amok at any stage?

Robert Buckland: As ever, my right hon. Friend makes an interesting and thought-provoking point. While I will not go into the individual facts of this case, because  it is subject to a police investigation and there is an ongoing inquiry, I will say this. The judgment as to a mental health disorder within the meaning set out in the Mental Health Act 1983 is a matter for two section 12 qualified clinicians—consultant psychiatrists—who will produce clinical evidence that will satisfy a court of the provisions of section 37 of the Act or, indeed, a restriction under section 41, which puts the power of release into my hands. That has to be satisfied on the basis of evidence.
It is important to make a distinction between that clinical approach and the risk assessment that we have to undertake when it comes to those who profess political motivation. It is thought-provoking in the sense that we need to think about a mechanism that would be robust and legally sound but would allow an objective assessment to be made about the risk posed by individuals, even after their sentence has been completed. Public protection has to come to the forefront of our thinking.
I will now describe what we have done operationally since the attack at Streatham. The Prison and Probation Service has taken immediate action to strengthen our operational grip of terrorist offenders and protect the public from any further attacks. The National Probation Service is working closely with counter-terrorism partners. Several offenders on licence have been recalled to prison since the attack, where officers identified concerning behaviour, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). We have also instructed prison governors to report any concerns and take any action required. Several terrorist prisoners have subsequently been placed in segregation units as a result of concerns raised by prison staff. The Prison Service is managing the risk of incidents in prisons that may be inspired by, or in response to, the attack at Streatham.
I would like to put on record my thanks to Ian Acheson for his 2016 report on our response to extremism in prisons. In the intervening years, the operating context has changed, and our response has strengthened considerably, but we must go further. We will take all additional steps necessary, including keeping the full list of recommendations in Mr Acheson’s internal report under careful review.
However, we need to take further action urgently to ensure that the public are protected. As we saw in the Streatham attack, we cannot have a situation where an offender—a known risk to the public—is released without any oversight by the Parole Board. The Bill therefore sets out new release arrangements for prisoners serving a sentence for a terrorist offence or an offence with a terrorist connection. There are two main elements to that: first, to standardise the earliest point at which they may be considered for release at two thirds of the sentence imposed; and secondly, to require that the Parole Board assesses whether they are safe to release between that point and the end of their sentence. That will apply to all terrorist and terrorist-related offences where the maximum penalty is above two years, including those offences for which Sudesh Umman was sentenced. Only a very small number of low-level offences, such as failure to comply with a police cordon, are excluded by this threshold, and prosecution and conviction for those offences are rare.
The changes affect those who are serving sentences for a specified offence, whether the sentence was imposed before or after the new section comes into force. Applying  this to serving prisoners reflects the unprecedented gravity of the situation we face and the danger posed to the public. The Bill will not achieve its intended effect unless it operates with retrospective effect, and therefore it will necessarily operate on both serving and future prisoners. That does not mean that the Bill will change retrospectively the sentence imposed by the court; release arrangements are part of the administration of a sentence, and the overall penalty remains unchanged. As I outlined earlier, domestic and ECHR case law supports our stance that article 7 is not engaged where the penalty imposed by the court is not altered. The measures in the Bill will also amend the release arrangements for terrorist offenders sentenced in Scotland, which will ensure a consistent approach where possible to the release of terrorist prisoners.

James Brokenshire: I commend my right hon. and learned Friend for the introduction of this legislation and dealing with the issue of early release. May I come back to him on a point I have raised previously about how we manage the risk of people who have offended once they have left prison and about using the availability and enforceability of post-release conditions, and indeed the terrorism prevention and investigation measures regime and its potential application, to give a sense of assurance? Can he comment any further on the next steps and how this can be progressed, because this is clearly an issue that will need to be addressed?

Robert Buckland: I am hugely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who, as the House will know, was a distinguished Security Minister and Northern Ireland Secretary and had to deal with these issues daily. I will say this to him: he will know that the counter-terrorism Bill, which was announced some weeks ago, will be coming before the House soon. There will be measures in it not only on the minimum term to be served for serious terror offences, but on the way in which licence periods will be applied as part of such a sentence. That is clearly one of the most effective ways to deal with this problem—through the criminal prosecution and conviction process.
My right hon. Friend makes a wider point. He will know from having navigated through the House the TPIMs legislation, which has been subsequently strengthened and amended, that there are other circumstances in which public protection will have to play a function in the absence of a conviction. It is on that particular cohort that the Government are placing a lot of attention and concentration. It would perhaps be idle of me to speculate by outlining what precise forms those will take, but it is a dialogue that I encourage him actively to take part in over the next few months and it is something I would want to develop with support from all parts of this House.

Bill Cash: At this stage in the debate and trying to avoid our having what might otherwise turn into an argument about the law in court, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether the case of del Río Prada has actually been taken into account? Does he know if that has been taken into account, because it was about policy and administration?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that not only has it been taken into account, but I have read it. It is a 2013 authority from the Strasbourg  Court that relates to a particular set of circumstances involving the Kingdom of Spain. There have been subsequent cases both before that court and, indeed, domestically. In summary, we are satisfied, on the basis of all the information we have, that the provisions of article 7 are not engaged in this respect.

Bob Neill: My right hon. and learned Friend is making a most compelling case for this legislation. For the sake of completeness, I am sure he will also have read and taken into account the subsequent cases in the Strasbourg Court of Abedin in the United Kingdom in 2016 and of the Supreme Court in Docherty in 2017—both subsequent to del Río Prada—which it seems to me support the Government’s contention.

Robert Buckland: I say to my hon. Friend, as I am sure he has heard many times in court, that his submissions find great force with the Government and we are persuaded by them.

Gavin Robinson: It is very clear that the Lord Chancellor is carrying the House with him this afternoon, and all of us are seized of the necessity of bringing forward this Bill at this time and as quickly as possible. However, it is acknowledged that there are serious concerns and issues about the engagement of article 7—I think he has an entirely justifiable position—and that we are bereft of the detailed prelegislative scrutiny that we might otherwise have had; that is a consequence of the situation we find ourselves in. Given that, has the Lord Chancellor given any consideration to injecting a review mechanism into the Bill?

Robert Buckland: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In fact, I think it is right to say, in the context of Northern Ireland, that we have given such careful consideration to the engagement of article 7 that we have chosen not to extend the legislation to Northern Ireland. The way in which the sentence is calculated and put together by the Northern Ireland courts does cause potential issues with regard to engagement and therefore potential interference with the nature of the penalty itself. I think that is actually very important in this context: it is real evidence of the fact that the British Government have thought very carefully about the engagement of article 7, and have not sought to take a blanket approach to all the various jurisdictions within the United Kingdom.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about a review mechanism. He will be reassured to know that a counter-terrorism Bill is coming forward that will cover all parts of the United Kingdom. There will be an opportunity on that Bill to debate and analyse further long-term proposals. Inevitably, the status and provisions of this Bill—I hope, by then, an Act of Parliament—will be part of that ongoing debate. I am confident that, through the mechanisms of this House, we will be able to subject these provisions to post-legislative scrutiny in the way that he would expect.

Jeremy Wright: My right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned the effect of this legislation that will keep terrorist prisoners in custody for longer, and he has rightly paid tribute to prison imams, who maintain religious interventions for those whose motivation for their terrorist offending is at least claimed to be religious. Can he reassure us that,  given the extra time in custody that many of these prisoners will now serve, such effective and in many cases very brave interventions by prison imams will be given the extra time available to take further effect?

Robert Buckland: My right hon. and learned Friend the former Attorney General speaks with great experience and knowledge of these matters. He is absolutely right to focus on the specialist intervention of our imams. I think I referred to the fact that we are going to increase resources and increase the number available within our prisons. Both the Home Secretary and I have seen at first hand the partnership working that goes on within the high-security estate when it comes to dealing with these particular challenges. It is precisely that type of specialist intervention that he and others can be confident we will be supporting in the years ahead.
I was going on to explain the extension of parole release to those who serve standard determinate sentences and other transitional cases currently subject to automatic release. In line with the normal arrangements for prisoners released by the Parole Board, the board will set the conditions of an offender’s licence for this cohort when they are released before the end of their sentence. The Parole Board, as I outlined earlier, has the necessary powers and indeed the expertise to make risk-based release decisions for terrorist offenders. The board currently deals with terrorists who serve indeterminate sentences, extended sentences and sentences for offenders of particular concern—the “SPOCs”, as they are colloquially referred to.
There is a cohort of specialist Parole Board members who are trained specifically to deal with terrorist and extremist offenders. They are, in effect, the specialised branch of the board that will be used to handle these additional cases. They include retired High Court judges, retired police officers and other experts in the field, all of whom have extensive experience of dealing with the most sensitive and difficult terrorist cases. Owing to the nature of the emergency legislation, I have proposed that the provisions cover England, Wales and Scotland.
The justification for this emergency, retrospective legislation—out of the ordinary though I accept it is—is to prevent the automatic release of terrorist offenders in the coming weeks and months. Given the risk that this cohort has already shown they pose to the public, it is vital that we pass this legislation rapidly before any more terrorists are automatically released from custody at the halfway point. Therefore, we are aiming for this legislation to receive Royal Assent before the end of the month. With the support of this House, I am confident that we can do that. I commend the Bill to the House.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am grateful to the Justice Secretary for his briefing last week and for his opening remarks and to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who has been keeping me updated in recent days.
This Bill follows the awful terrorist atrocities first at Fishmongers’ Hall on 30 November and more recently in Streatham. My thoughts, and I am sure those of all Members across the House, go out to the victims of these terrible attacks and to their families and friends, and we thank the emergency services who responded so quickly.
Labour Members support the Parole Board’s involvement in release decisions. If this Bill is not passed and rushed through its stages over the next couple of weeks, terrorist prisoners will be on our streets, without any assessment of risk or dangerousness by the Parole Board. That does not leave the House in the easiest of positions, but it is the reality of the situation before us. For the Bill to be durable and workable, it must not simply amount to a delay in confronting the problem; it will also require a relentless focus on, and investment in, the most effective deradicalisation programmes in our prisons.

Desmond Swayne: One of the most effective deradicalisation programmes is that run by the Saudis, but it takes a long time. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that sentences are long enough to accommodate a successful programme?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I took part in a long debate on sentencing in the last Parliament with the then Minister of State for Security and Economic Crime, now the Secretary of State for Defence, and a number of sentences were increased. In her intervention on the Justice Secretary, the former Prime Minister pointed out —very fairly, I thought—that there has been an issue with the success of deradicalisation programmes in recent years. Length of a sentence is one matter, but, whatever the length, the programme must be targeted and effective. I will come on to that point in a moment.
We are here to discuss emergency legislation, but there is also an emergency in resources. The Leader of the House indicated yesterday that the Treasury has approved additional resources for the extra time that prisoners will spend in custody as a consequence of the Bill, as well as for the Parole Board. Clearly, however, there must also be a specific and dramatic increase in resources to tackle extremism in our prisons.
But this is not just about resources—my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made a point about process and expertise, and she is absolutely right—and a strategic approach from the top will be required.
The Justice Secretary made it clear that there is no need for derogation from the European convention on human rights, and he set out the Government’s legal position on article 7. Labour Members firmly believe that we can tackle terrorism and proudly remain signatories to the European convention on human rights. In our view, to leave that convention and join Belarus as the only European non-signatory would send a terrible signal to the rest of the world. We should never sacrifice the values that we are defending in the fight against terrorism and hatred.
Those who perpetrate hatred and violence are responsible for their actions, but it is for the Government to do everything they can to keep our streets safe and minimise the risk of something like this ever happening again. The House is therefore entitled to ask why we have ended up requiring this Bill to be passed via emergency legislation. Automatic early release is hardly new. It has been part of our system for many years, and it could already have been dealt with by a Government who took a more strategic approach.
There have been a number of warning signals over the past decade. In his opening remarks, the Justice Secretary mentioned Ian Acheson, a former prison governor who led a review of Islamist extremism in our prisons, probation and youth justice system, which was published in August 2016. Mr Acheson said:
“What we found was so shockingly bad that I had to agree to the language in the original report being toned down…There were serious deficiencies in almost every aspect of the management of terrorist offenders through the system…It was a shambles.”
Mr Acheson proposed 69 recommendations that, according to the Justice Secretary when speaking to the media over the weekend, have been consolidated into a total of 11, eight of which are being implemented. However, in a newspaper article last Thursday, Mr Acheson said:
“As part of my review of prison extremism, I made a great number of recommendations that specifically related to a tactical response to a terrorist incident in prison where staff were targeted. I have no way of knowing if or how many were implemented as none made it into the response published by the Ministry of Justice.”
That was only days ago. I do not know whether the Justice Secretary has met Mr Acheson since last Thursday—[Interruption.] I am happy for him to intervene.

Robert Buckland: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I have not met Mr Acheson since last Thursday, but I have met him. Indeed, I took part in a documentary that he produced for Radio 4 a few weeks ago, before the latest attack. His engagement has been valued. I will not go into the precise circumstances in which the report was consolidated, because in essence it contained some sensitive matters that we all understood could not be published.
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about 2016. We accepted what Mr Acheson said, but things have moved on a long way since then, and the problems that were identified are being tackled directly. We accept that there is still more to be done, but the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that we have moved on in the four years since that report.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I will come on to whether things have moved on in a moment when I explore what the chief inspector of prisons says about that issue. Last Thursday, however—only days ago—Mr Acheson was clearly unsure of the Government’s position. I hear what the Justice Secretary says about what is in the public domain, which is entirely appropriate. One would hope, however, that someone who led a review for the Government would know four years later whether specific recommendations had been acted on. I also accept what the Justice Secretary says about appearing in a documentary, but I strongly suggest that he meet Mr Acheson fairly urgently, to discuss those matters about which Mr Acheson is not sure, so that they can be cleared up.

Robert Buckland: I should have added that I have offered Mr Acheson a full briefing from Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service on those issues, and it has been accepted.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am pleased to hear that, and I hope we will never again be in a situation where someone who led a review is not aware of what is going on years later. That simply cannot and should not happen, as I am sure the Justice Secretary would agree.
There are concerns about the Ministry of Justice listening and the extent to which justice has been a priority for the Government over the past decade. The coalition Government chose not to make the Ministry of Justice a protected Department when they implemented spending cuts. That led to 40% cuts over the past decade, including to the prisons that today we expect to play a vital role in offender management. We know that 21,000 police officers disappeared from our streets, and prison officer numbers have been slashed. There are currently 18,912 frontline prison officers, which is not yet back to 2010 levels. That loss of prison officers has not just reduced the capacity of prisons to deal with rehabilitation; it also means that years of experience of working in challenging environments in our prisons have been lost.
In 2019, 35% of prison officers had been in post for less than two years, compared with just 7% in 2010. I do not mean that those officers are not doing their best in difficult circumstances, but the Government needlessly threw away valuable experience in our prisons.

Khalid Mahmood: Does my hon. Friend agree that that lack of prison officers, the privatisation of some of our prisons, and having those young officers, have led to problems in Her Majesty’s Prison Birmingham, which has seen a number of riots over the past couple of years? It adds more to the Treasury’s costs if we have to take away people with experience and later bring them back.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend speaks with great authority about HMP Birmingham, and he is right to identify that if prisons are run in such a way there will be consequences because the time available for meaningful activity is reduced.
The Justice Secretary talked in the media at the weekend about improvements in our justice system since Mr Acheson’s report. He repeated that in his speech and he has repeated it in an intervention a moment or two ago. I therefore thought I would compare what the Justice Secretary is saying with the views of the independent chief inspector of prisons. The latest annual report from Peter Clarke states that
“far too many of our jails have been plagued by drugs, violence, appalling living conditions and a lack of access to meaningful rehabilitative activity.”
That should be a wake-up call to the Government. Mr Clarke went on to say that
“levels of self-harm were disturbingly high and self-inflicted deaths tragically increased by nearly one-fifth on the previous year.”
That is no way for the Prison Service to be run and things must change.
There is also, if I may say so, an issue at the Ministry of Justice with the Government failing to provide it with stable leadership. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the seventh Justice Secretary since 2010. Of those seven, five have served for 18 months or less. The role of Lord Chancellor should have been respected and not been subject to a revolving door. No wonder there is such a lack of direction and no wonder there is no long-term planning. Justice Secretaries are simply not in post long enough. There are even indications from 10 Downing Street that half the Cabinet could be out by Friday.
I say in all sincerity to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I very much hope he survives in this role—I hope I have not jinxed him by saying that; I could have just ruined his Friday—because there is an enormous job to do. There are 224 terrorist prisoners in England and Wales, of whom 173 have been assessed as having extreme Islamist views. We also know that there is a growing threat from far-right terrorism. If we want properly to manage the risk of terrorist offenders, we need the most effective targeted deradicalisation programmes to be delivered by staff working in the best conditions we can provide for them.

Karin Smyth: One area has not been mentioned. When I took part in the police service parliamentary scheme and spent some time with the counter-terrorism units, the one area they highlighted was working on the ground with mental health resources in our communities. That risk decision, the decision at community level about someone’s mental capacity and radicalisation, is really important when we look at resources. The cuts to our mental health services are having an impact on this area.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think we sometimes see things in isolation, but cuts to many other services have also had an impact, which the Government need to take into account. Indeed, we talk about conditions for our prison officers to work in, and a third of our prisons were built in the Victoria era. There is a £900 million maintenance backlog and a desperate need for new investment.

Bill Cash: On mental disturbance, does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are circumstances in which the principle of mens rea may not apply simply because the person in question, for a variety of reasons, some of which may be drug-affected or intrinsic, is incapable of making an act within the framework of mens rea? In those circumstances, should we perhaps be thinking further down the line about what kind of containment people need to restrain them from performing such murderous acts?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: A number of issues about mens rea, which is an essential element of committing a criminal offence, have been decided before the courts. However, elements of our law can already deal with those who suffer from severe mental health problems, and they can be used and operated appropriately on a multi-agency basis.

Julian Lewis: I take this opportunity to reiterate my previous intervention. The suspicion is that there are gravely mentally ill people who are in prison when they ought to be treated as if they are criminally insane and held in a secure psychiatric unit. The concern is that people are being treated as terrorists when they are clearly mad, simply because they have picked up some smattering of something that passes for a religious motivation.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Where I can agree to a degree is that I certainly accept that there are people with mental health problems in prison who, frankly, should not be. The right hon. Gentleman refers, I think, to secure psychiatric units, where there is also a shortage of places. That is another issue that the Government need to accept on the basis of the past 10 years.
I heard what the Justice Secretary said about specialist officers, particularly those in deradicalisation programmes, but we are tolerating a rise in physical attacks on our prison staff. That cannot be fair to them and it will not produce a constructive environment in our prisons. From September 2018-19, there were 33,222 assaults, including 23,592 prisoner-on-prisoner assaults and 10,059 assaults on staff. Levels of self-harm were also the highest ever recorded.
The Bill, I am sure the Justice Secretary will argue, will deal with the immediate crisis of the next few weeks, but he must plan ahead. The crisis in our criminal justice system does not end with our prisons. We also need the best possible probation services and the best possible supervision. In 2014, the Government part-privatised the Probation Service. I do not think it is unfair to say that it was an absolute disaster. The Government had more than 150,000 people supervised by private community rehabilitation companies and just left the high-risk offenders to be managed by the National Probation Service. The chief inspector of probation, Dame Glenys Stacey, said last year:
“The system which sees private firms monitor criminals serving community sentences is ‘irredeemably flawed’”.
She is right. No wonder the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s predecessor had to announce last year that the supervision of all offenders on probation in England and Wales was being put back into the public sector.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is making a point about capacity, and that seems to be reasonable. Early release—scores of convicted terrorists have been released early since 2013—adds to demand on capacity and he is making a case that we should address that. On that basis, I am sure he would want to support the Secretary of State in taking that pressure away, building morale and, as he described, allowing the police to exercise capacity more effectively.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Well, yes. I have made absolutely clear my support for the measures before us today. My point is simply this: today we will deal with an immediate crisis. What the Bill will not do is deal with the broader and deeper problems we have that will need to be dealt with in the months and years ahead. The National Audit Office announced that the botched part-privatisation of probation cost the taxpayer nearly £500 million. Frankly, it is time for good sense and consistency in policy making at the Ministry of Justice.
The independent review of the Prevent programme, which I secured in the previous Parliament—I think I debated it with the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—has been announced, but there is no reviewer. We are now a year from the point at which the Bill that he and I debated received Royal Assent. Lord Carlile was appointed but resigned before Christmas, because he had already expressed views on the programme, and the Government have hardly shown urgency in appointing a replacement. It is high time that they did. I appreciate that that is not the responsibility of the Justice Secretary, but I am sure he will pass on the message to his Cabinet colleagues that the reviewer must be appointed and the review must begin, take place and make recommendations. Today  really must be a day when that focus on rehabilitation comes and we turn the page away from a decade of problems in our criminal justice system.
One of the recommendations made by Mr Acheson was for an independent adviser on counter-terrorism in prisons. I would go further and press the Justice Secretary to provide external scrutiny and assessment of the de-radicalisation programmes across our prison estate. In that way, this House can regularly assess the position, and we will not again be in a situation where we are taken by surprise or are responding on the hoof. We cannot tolerate our prisons becoming breeding grounds for extremism, and we need to ask searching questions.
I hope that this emergency legislation will pass without a Division. Alongside it, I hope that the Government will now invest in the very best expertise available in counter-extremism and tackle the crisis in our prisons. It is only by doing that that the Government can truly say they are doing all they can to keep our streets safe, and in that we will be holding them to account.

Bob Neill: The speeches from both Front Benchers have been very thoughtful and that matches the significance of this debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor made a very compelling case for this legislation. It is not the type of legislation that the House should undertake lightly, but protecting the public must ultimately trump all other considerations. It is always right that we should protect the public in a way that is commensurate with the rule of law. I believe that the Government and the Lord Chancellor have managed to achieve that balance, and I am glad that the official Opposition recognise that, too. That is a fundamental duty for us all, and reconciling the two is a considerable achievement, given the pressures we are under at this time.
The reason that I think it is necessary to move in this way has been well set out. I speak as somebody who represents a London constituency: many of my constituents work in and around the places where we have seen so many atrocities. That brings home to us profoundly the catastrophic risk that can come when an individual is released. Even though the index offence that caused them to go to prison may not have led to a very long sentence, the nature—I am sorry to say—of the type of terrorism that we see now, often based on perverted ideologies and the deep-seated hatred that that breeds, gives us the need to be particularly careful and cautious about all forms of release going forward. The automatic point of release will be moved to two thirds—in fact, that will no longer be automatic but will, in all cases, be considered by the Parole Board, and that is a worthwhile and important aspect of the Bill.

Bill Cash: I am listening with great interest to everything that my hon. Friend says, as ever. Does he think that the question over the Bill is that it will have a limited effect, whereas the problems that we face have a much longer-term consequence? Does he believe, therefore, that we ought to have a more rigorous analysis in future—this is only emergency legislation—to make sure that human life in this country takes priority over the interpretation of law?

Bob Neill: I certainly agree that we need a more detailed analysis of the best approach to a threat that continues to change and develop. My hon. Friend is right about that, and it is right that this is a discrete, emergency measure to deal with a specific and urgent problem. We certainly need to look at the way in which we deal with sentencing, the treatment of such individuals and the protection of the public in that context—that is absolutely right. I happen to believe, lest it be hinted otherwise, that that is perfectly capable of being achieved within our continuing adherence to the European convention on human rights and that a series of British court decisions would tend to support that, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right on the broader thrust that there is more work to do in this field. I got the sense that the Government and the Lord Chancellor recognise that, too.
It is right that we should consider the necessity of the Bill. I would have thought that that had been well laid out now. That is one of the principles of the rule of law. Lord Bingham famously set out a number of principles. One should not act in haste unless there is a compelling reason, but the reality of blood being shed on the streets of this country seems a compelling reason to me. The fact that people have been released and then have swiftly, and frequently, seized articles and used them to catastrophic effect seems to make this legislation both necessary and proportionate, so I hope that the House will have no hesitation in supporting it.
One issue that seems to have raised some concern, particularly in legal circles, is whether there is any risk of retrospectivity. I do not seek to see retrospective legislation, and for the reasons that the Lord Chancellor set out I do not believe that that is the case. When I was in practice at the Bar, it was very clear that the prospect of whether early release might occur was not a consideration that any judge should take into account in passing sentence. The principle was, and always has been, that the sentence passed should be commensurate with the gravity and seriousness of the offence and any other legitimate mitigating or aggravating circumstances that the Crown or the defence can put forward. Whether there may or may not be early release thereafter was never regarded as a consideration affecting the penalty.
That is important for the argument that the Bill retrospectively increases the penalty, which I think is a misguided argument in these circumstances. It was often said that the prospect of early release in effect ameliorates the penalty that was passed, rather than anything else. There is a string of authority in both the UK and Strasbourg courts to the effect that the total duration of the penalty is that which is laid down by the court at the time. That is the bit that cannot be changed retrospectively and the legislation does not seek to do that.

John Hayes: From his long experience of these things, my hon. Friend is making a cogent argument about the character of penalties. He might want to go further. The problem with the assumption about automatic early release is that it is injurious to the very principle that he set out. Early release has always been part of judicial considerations but on the basis of an assessment of risk, merit and worthiness. Automatic early release runs against those principles.

Bob Neill: I understand that point and we can debate it in broader terms when the larger piece of sentencing legislation is introduced, as I understand it  will be later in the Session. The purpose of this legislation is effectively to deal with that—as well as moving the release point from half-way to two thirds, the Bill automatically states that there must be consideration by the Parole Board. It is very important that the Parole Board has the resource and expertise to carry out the additional and heavy burden that it must take on. There have been good reforms of the Parole Board since the Worboys case, for example, and in the last Parliament the Justice Committee looked at this and urged changes to the way in which parole operated, which have been acted on. There is movement in the right direction but we must be ever vigilant in making sure that the Parole Board has the resource, which may include more specialist resource.

Julian Lewis: I am very interested in my hon. Friend’s lucid speech and particularly in the fact that he says the sentence imposed by judges is meant to reflect the gravity of the crime. It does explain why so many victims feel short-changed when people are let out early. When we come to consider the larger question of sentencing, would it not make more sense to have judges impose sentences that people will actually serve and to extend them if people misbehave in jail, rather than reducing them if they behave?

Bob Neill: My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We will want to look at a number of issues when we debate the sentencing Bill. However, I say by way of caution that when we start extending the sentence—the penalty—we run the risk of falling foul of the principle against retrospectivity. With respect, I say to him that that is not something I would wish to see. That is different from remission of the sentence for earned good behaviour, which is the traditional system that we grew up with. There is an important distinction to be drawn.

Julian Lewis: The point about extending the sentence is that it would be extended because of the commission of a further offence while the person was in prison, and that would not be retrospectivity.

Bob Neill: That is an interesting point, but, with respect to my right hon. Friend, it is a wholly different consideration. There has been much debate on this point. The Select Committee has looked at it and urged that for certain offences, such as assaults on prison officers, there is often a compelling case, as a matter of public policy, for that to be charged as an additional offence, rather than be dealt with under the prison disciplinary rules, as is frequently the case. I am with him on that, but perhaps that is as far as we should take it today.
I have one final point about retrospectivity. Some learned commentators have raised concerns on the basis of the European Court decision in the case of del Río Prada, but that case at most raises a tangential or speculative concern that there might be retrospectivity. The briefing from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law—I have a lot of respect for that centre, so it is right that I address it—says that arguably this could be regarded as falling foul of the principles; it does not come down hard and fast in that regard. The decision came after a particularly convoluted history of changes within the Spanish judicial system, which is utterly different from what we are doing. Subsequently, there  have been decisions by the Strasbourg Court, in the case of the application of Abedin against the United Kingdom, and by the Supreme Court in the UK, in the case of Doherty, where the line of reasoning was much more consistent with the traditional stance we have taken ever since the House of Lords decision in the case of Uttley, which was that the changes to remission and early release provisions were part of the administration or execution of a sentence, not part of the penalty. That seems such a well-established principle that we ought to have confidence that we can act upon it in this case.

Chris Philp: I wholeheartedly concur with my hon. Friend’s analysis, but I just wanted to add one point. The del Río Prada case touched on how concurrent sentences were calculated, which is wholly different from the matter before the House today.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In legal parlance, I would say that is the most material consideration in distinguishing between those cases and the ones we are dealing with here. I hope that, having considered all those points, the House will be reassured on retrospectivity.
As other hon. Members have observed, it is important to recognise that this is a specific piece of legislation dealing with a specific and discrete problem; it does not mean we should not act urgently to deal with the broader issue of how we deal with this type of terrorism, which has developed in recent years; how we contain those who are deeply radicalised in prison; and how we prevent further radicalisation in prison—there is some concern that the Streatham attacker might still have been receiving radicalisation material while in prison. We need to look urgently at that and at the threat, which many of us have come across, of hard-line terrorist prisoners seeking to further radicalise more vulnerable inmates within the prison estate. That is an issue that Mr Acheson, who has been referred to favourably by many in this debate, addressed. I am glad to hear the Lord Chancellor has been in touch with Mr Acheson.
I share the view of the shadow Minister that Mr Acheson has a good deal more to give to this discussion. Things have moved on since his 2016 report, and he was a most compelling witness when he appeared before the Justice Committee in a previous Parliament, so it might be that we would like the benefit of his views again. I hope the Government will engage directly with him to see how, within the new context, we can continue to take on that and other expertise.
It is also right that we build upon the good work being done by the chaplaincy service in the form of the specialist imams. We have not perhaps given enough credit to the work of prison chaplaincy generally and of the specialist imams, who have a very difficult task to fulfil but do it most admirably. That is the impression I have got from those I have met. What more can we do to give them greater professional—pastoral, if you like—practical and professional support? This is an important area. I hope the Minister will confirm that we intend to continue that work and say what we can do to make sure that the many terrorist prisoners being held in high-security prisons like Belmarsh, near me in south-east  London, are being held in a way that does not pose any further threat to staff, in terms of attacks—an issue that Mr Acheson dealt with—or any threat, either physically or in terms of further corruption, to other more vulnerable inmates with whom they might be serving.
In conclusion, this is an important Bill, and I hope the House will speed it through, but there is much more work to do. I will finish, though the Lord Chancellor is not now in the Chamber, by concurring with the shadow Minister on one final point: I, too, have been frustrated, as Chairman of the Select Committee, at the revolving door of Secretaries of State and Ministers who have appeared before us over the years, and I very much hope that the Lord Chancellor will stay in office very successfully and for many years. His handling of this delicate matter, including yesterday, has given him as good a claim as anyone to his office—and I, too, hope that that has not done too much damage to his career.

Kenny MacAskill: I concur with the Lord Chancellor’s comments that one of the primary duties of any Government, in any country, is to keep their population safe. I would go as far as to say that that applies to everybody elected to this institution and indeed to any democratic Chamber. Nobody seeks to make their constituency, let alone their country, unsafe. It is in that spirit that we come to this debate.
We understand the spirit of the Bill and the need for urgency—our party has had to deal, in another Chamber, with urgent and special procedures on severe matters that present a danger to the public—but we obviously have other duties, too, and there must be an element of proportionality. I think the Lord Chancellor used the word “cohorts”. It is important that we put it on the record that, despite what might be put across by some tabloid newspapers or by others, we are not dealing with thousands or hundreds; he said that we were dealing with 50 individuals, although some have suggested that it might be an even lower number. Equally, we recognise that, although they may be few in number, the danger and damage they can cause in our communities is significant, as we have sadly seen.

Julian Lewis: Although I concur with what the hon. Gentleman has said, he will recognise that keeping even one of these people under close surveillance can involve up to 50 members of special branch or MI5. Therefore, even a handful of them will severely test the resources of the security services.

Kenny MacAskill: Absolutely. I was going to come to that point, given my involvement as a former Justice Secretary in Scotland. We on the Opposition Benches have a duty not only to ensure public safety, but to challenge and hold the Government to account on proportionality, practicality and operability. We will test and probe issues to ensure that public safety criteria, which are shared on both sides of the House, are met, but I assure the Minister that we do not oppose the general principles of the Bill.
That brings me to the question of retrospectivity, which has been commented on by many Members. It is unusual, it is rare, it is infrequently done, but we are open to it, although we have some caveats, the major one being that we have to get it right. We appreciate and welcome the extensive consideration given to this matter  and the sharing with all Members of the logic and thinking, but this is an important point. I am conscious of the analogy of wasps in a jar: if you shake them all about and then let them out, you will get stung. We are, as I say, sympathetic to the point about retrospectivity, but we take on board the points made by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, which Members will have seen today. We seek as much assurance as the Minister can give—we recognise that no absolute assurance can be given—that he is as certain as he can be that we will not face protracted litigation, a rewrite or further emergency legislation, and that we will avoid the potentially calamitous problems that may follow. I think again of the analogy of wasps in a jar.
That takes us on to the substantive issues that have been dealt with by many Members on both sides of the House, but in particular by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). The real issue here is radicalisation. Our primary concern on the Opposition Benches is not so much the nature of the legislation, but the action with prisoners, current or future, that has been taken and must be taken in the future. It is one thing to detain them for longer; it is quite another to do something constructive with them when we have them. That is the nub of the problem, and that is the underlying issue that we are seeking to test with the Government.
I think it was the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who mentioned that all will ultimately be released. I had significant discussions with her when she was the Home Secretary and I was the Justice Secretary in the Scottish Parliament. The likelihood is that most will be released bar a very few, perhaps only a handful, and we must ensure that when that date comes, we are as safe as we can be. Although no Government can give every assurance that no one will reoffend, we must be as sure as we can be that the risk is limited, or, indeed, that the actions to protect the public have been taken.
That brings me back to why we are generally supportive of the thrust of the Opposition amendments, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Torfaen. The real issue is not the legislation, but the action to deradicalise when people are within our prisons and monitor when they are without them. We also recognise that this is a relatively new phenomenon. Many Members have said that it has been with us for more years than they care to remember, but it is a challenge for those involved in criminal justice, because this is a new aspect. We have to think outside the box, which is why the input of imams, which was mentioned earlier, is so important. They are to be welcomed—and they sometimes face significant challenges, if not threats, themselves.

Aaron Bell: The point that the hon. Gentleman is making is absolutely correct, but there will be some who will not be deradicalised. In that circumstance, and when the time comes for their release, they are not mentally ill but they have a different view of the world. Might we not need to review the treason law, as was suggested at the weekend by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat)?

Kenny MacAskill: I do not think that that would be required. I think that there are other ways in which we can deal with these people. The Chair of the Select  Committee will know better than I, and the law in Scotland is somewhat different in relation to how we address psychopathy, but dealing with mental health issues always involves difficulties. It challenges the courts as it challenges those in the national health service who quite correctly deal with those issues. I think that this comes down to the fact that we are dealing with a new phenomenon. There are those who are mentally ill and who are set loose to cause havoc—either individually or encouraged by others—and the health service has to try to deal with them as best it can, but there are others who are simply malevolent. There are powers under current terrorism legislation, so I do not think there is any need for additional measures in that regard.
That returns me to the question of how we deal with them within and how we deal with them without. Let me start with the latter. Obviously monitoring is extremely resource-significant, as was mentioned by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). It is not a matter of someone in a rain jacket tailing an individual, even if that someone is accompanied by another. It takes dozens, and often significantly more, because there is back-office work and there are different shifts, and there are different ways of monitoring in the world in which we live. The resources needed just to deal with one individual, never mind the accompanying supply chain, are significant, and we need assurances that that will be provided. More police are required, particularly south of the border. The impact of terrorism on policing is significant, and that must be taken on board, given the other demands that the police rightly face in our communities.
I now come to the former issue. This is relevant to what has been said about the Acheson review, which was published back in 2016. It appears that little has been done since then. I gather from discussions I have had that one of Mr Acheson’s recommendations—which was, quite correctly, welcomed by the Government—was that prisons should have specialist separation units. I understand that some four were subsequently established, but only one—at, I think, HMP Frankland—is in operation. I am open to correction or challenge, but if that is indeed the position, it is simply not good enough. If an independent reviewer of the stature of Mr Acheson—on which we all agree—makes a recommendation, you are duty bound to implement it. If he makes a specific recommendation for units that you go to the trouble of establishing, it is mind-blowing that only one should be operating.

Joy Morrissey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the separation units. We need to think about how we can increase the numbers. People who are already radicalised arrive in prison and then prey on vulnerable inmates to increase the level of radicalisation. It has been suggested that those who have already been convicted of terrorist crimes should be placed in separate units to prevent the spread of radicalisation. The hon. Gentleman has made a very good point.

Kenny MacAskill: I thank the hon. Lady. The same has been done in previous years in the case of other prisoners. Even during my tenure, we had special units for those involved in paramilitary activities in Northern Ireland. This is something deeply specialised, but it will require action both by those involved in the establishment of the units and by the Prison Service.
That brings me to the question of deradicalisation programmes. I recognise the difficulty of checking against delivery and ensuring that the programmes are working, but I think that we need to take steps. I have a special request for the Minister: I think that prison officers should have an input in these courses. Their input is currently very limited—indeed, almost nil—and they are outsourced, which is understandable. There are also the specialist resources such as imams, who were mentioned earlier. However, we should recognise that prison officers have remarkable skills. They are able to tell who is pulling the wool over their eyes. They may not be trained in this or qualified in that, but they know psychology and individuals within the prison institution. They can tell us why someone is applying for a course—in the main, because no one can always get it right. They are hugely skilful in distinguishing those who are signing up because they want to be able to tick the box and satisfy the Parole Board from those who are signing up for a course because they believe in it. They do not engage with the prisoners just on the course; they live with them 24/7, and they can see who prisoners are interacting with and what their behaviour is like. I think that we have been remiss in this regard, and I ask the Minister to take my suggestion on board.
Let me end by simply saying that we are satisfied about the need for the Bill. We are satisfied with the general principles. We wish to be assured that retrospectivity will be addressed and that resources both within and without will be provided. If that is done—although we accept that no Government can give us an absolute, categorical assurance that these people will not reoffend —we can at least go back to our constituencies and say to our constituents that we are doing as much as we can to keep our communities safe.

Rosie Winterton: It is a pleasure to call Dr Kieran Mullan to make his maiden speech.

Kieran Mullan: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to make my maiden speech. I am conscious of the seriousness of the topic with which we are dealing today as I embark on the traditional features of a maiden speech, but we know that the positive community stories that I will be sharing are exactly what the terrorists seek to destroy and what the Bill seeks to prevent them from destroying.
Let me begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Laura Smith. Laura was vociferous in her advocacy, and, like me, has frontline experience of public services. Before becoming a politician, she was a primary school teacher and a private tutor. It is a good thing to have diverse backgrounds and experiences in this place.
Crewe and Nantwich is a true melting pot of northern Britain, and I could not possibly do all its diversity justice in this short speech. I represent a large number of villages and parishes including Haslington, Willaston, Wistaston, Rope, Hough, Basford, Shavington, Barthomley, Weston, Leighton and Wybunbury. Across the constituency can be seen a host of community activities that embed each of those places in my mind. Hough village will  always be best known to me as the home of a monthly charity bingo club set up by village resident Celia Brown, which has raised thousands of pounds over the years. I pay tribute to the amazing contribution that Celia and her family have made to charity fundraising. Willaston hosts the annual world worm-charming championship, which sees competitors travel from as far afield as New Zealand and Australia. I will ensure that the upcoming reform of the immigration system makes the necessary visas available to those who wish to compete in this important global competition.
We have a host of fantastic local sports teams, including Crewe and Nantwich rugby club, which I play for. There is no better way of keeping your feet firmly on the ground than running around on the rugby pitch on a Saturday with team-mates and an opposition who could not care less about my being an MP: the bruise on my cheek testifies to that. The second team that I play for has a two-part team motto, the first part of which is “Win or Lose”; the second part contains unparliamentary language which I cannot repeat in this place.
Inevitably, however, the constituency is best known for its two towns of Crewe and Nantwich. Nantwich is a true gem in the Cheshire tourism crown, attracting streams of visitors every year, whether it be to the regular farmers markets or the famous food festival, or just to enjoy a stroll around the cobbled pavements with a view of St Mary’s church and the beautiful floral displays of Nantwich In Bloom. It is home to Barony Park, which is championed by the Friends of Barony Park and their irrepressible cheerleader, Rachel Wright.
Crewe is a town with a proud history, and there can be no better example of the kind of town this Government have pledged to support. Everywhere you look, there are people fighting to make a difference: people such as David McDonald and Margaret Smith, who are working hard to improve Crewe as part of the Crewe Clean Team. When the Beechmere residential home burned down last year, the whole community rallied round.
However, Crewe faces a declining high street and an ongoing struggle to return once again to the high point of its enormous contribution to our national economy as home to Crewe Works, which at one point employed 20,000 people designing and building world-famous trains. The site’s famous 11-metre tall wall that had stood for more than a century was finally knocked down last year to make way for development. I grudgingly understand why that might have been the right decision, but it serves as a symbol of what we must get right for all of Crewe. Yes, let’s see progress—as we soon will with the arrival of HS2 and with the Towns Fund investment—but we must ensure that the reward is worth the cost, and losing the wall and the legacy it represented has been a blow for many local residents. Bombardier has allowed me to have a brick from that wall, and it has pride of place in my office to serve as a constant reminder to me of what has passed and what must come next. Why do things such as that wall matter to people? They matter because they help us to tell a story of our lives and our history.
Seven years ago, as a junior doctor, I had the privilege to look after Jan Krasnodebski, a Polish man of quiet dignity, who was admitted to hospital towards the end of his life. His family were deported from Poland to Russia during the war, then allowed by Stalin to join the British Army training camps in Persia. Jan eventually  joined the Polish army cadet school in Palestine, and when the British mandate ended, he came to Britain. He went on to live a rich life, but he had no wife or children. We would sometimes talk in the evenings, and he told me of his worry that without children of his own, his life would not be as vividly remembered as it deserved to be. I know, as a gay man, that the question of whether I would have children and how I would be remembered sometimes crossed my mind at the time, so I felt an affinity with him.
We agreed that I would write the story of Jan’s life, so that he could share it with others and ensure that he would be remembered. For a week after I finished work, I sat with him as he quietly and studiously sketched it out for me. It was the story of two generations, his and his parents’, who lived in a world more precarious than most of us can imagine, and full of hardship but also of dignity. What we wrote together was read at his funeral following his death a couple of months after he left hospital. In preparing this speech, I revisited the story. In it, I think we can find some clues as to why, despite the hardship and upheaval that they faced, families such as Jan’s and their communities still lived contented lives. As I share Jan’s words now, they enter Hansard, so he can be sure that his story is preserved forever. Jan told me:
“You can have a happy fulfilled life as long as you do something that you think is important.”
When we get home from this place in the evenings, we climb into bed and all the pomp and ceremony and the expectations on us fall away, and we are no different to Jan in his hospital bed wanting to reflect on his life and feel that it had meaning. Our constituents are no different either. Listening to the maiden speeches of many new Members, I have been struck by how many have spoken about what is increasingly missing from people’s lives: that sense of how they fit in with this ever-changing complicated world we live in. People want meaning and a sense of where they belong. Too often, we forget that that comes in the form of expectations and obligations on us. Delivering on what we must give to others and what is expected of us helps to create our own sense of worth.
There are no simple solutions to this challenge of people struggling with their identity and place in the world. If you have a low-paid skilled job but every week you help to run a women’s refuge, you can feel important. On the other hand, you can have a high-paid, high-skilled job but get lost in the world of addiction, because what you earn has, on its own, given you no sense of meaning. You can live on a deprived housing estate surrounded by drug-dealing gangs but feel no temptation to join them, because your loving family is all the community you need. And you can hold enormous talent in your hands but not feel valued, because society has decided that grafting all day for a great wage is not as important or worthy as going to university.
Today we are talking about the evils of terrorism, but at the heart of any successful terrorist recruitment campaign are people who have lost that sense of meaning in their own lives, leaving them vulnerable to the simple narratives of victimhood and betrayal. We can build infrastructure and create jobs, but all of this sits in a vacuum if it is not part of a broader story of a nation and a community that people feel part of. Of course, I will always believe that it is our families—the very first community we are part of—that ensure we grow to  become part of the wider world with confidence, ambition and a sense of right and wrong. People lacking that foundation need our help most of all.
Modern culture holds up as important the people whose stories are being told loudest, on radio and television, in newspapers and on Facebook and Instagram, and whether a story is being told by admirers or detractors, we are made to feel that it is volume that counts. That is something that modern terrorist groups understand very well. Let us make sure that our constituents feel their story is important, however quietly told it is. I finish by returning to Jan’s words. He reflected:
“Though I have written about some of the more memorable events in my life, I would say most of my enjoyment of life has been from the day to day involvement in smaller ways with the Polish community”.
Whether we are addressing terrorism, loneliness, addiction or family breakdown, it is with community, belonging and importance that we need to start if we really want to level up this country. Many people have forgotten that the community right outside their door—in community bingo clubs, world worm-charming championships, parks groups, litter-pick groups and rugby teams—is where they will find that fulfilment, belonging and a sense of importance. Let us work hard in this place to remind them of that, to ensure that our society is one in which no terrorist ideology will ever find a home.

Yvette Cooper: I should like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) on his thoughtful and beautiful speech. To give his maiden speech in that spirit shows the way in which he will work hard for his constituents to tell the stories not just of the two towns he represents but of the people within the towns, and also of the search for meaning and the search for purpose in politics. I really must congratulate him on making such a poignant and powerful maiden speech.
I rise to support this legislation. The purpose behind the Bill is the right one. It is to ensure that those convicted of terrorist offences are not released early without a Parole Board assessment of whether they still pose a danger to the public. In the past few months, we have seen two awful terror attacks—one on London Bridge and one in Streatham—and our hearts go out to those who were killed or hurt, and also to their families and to those who were there and witnessed the awful events. We owe our thanks and tributes to brave members of the public as well as to the police, the security services and the emergency services, and to those such as Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones, who worked so hard on the rehabilitation of offenders in the community, and who worked every day to help keep others safe. They tragically lost their lives in the London Bridge attack.
I agree with the Lord Chancellor and with my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) that we should come together on this, because terrorists seek to undermine our way of life and to divide us, and we cannot let them so do. We have faced terrorist and extremist attacks for many years in this country. We have seen an increase in Islamist extremism and, more recently, an increase in far right extremism. The changing patterns of those threats include an increase in lone attacks by those who have been radicalised, either online   or in prison. In those attacks, by extremists on all sides in pursuit of poisonous ideologies, people are hoping not just to hurt and harm us but to provoke fear and reactions that they can further feed upon. So it is a sign of our strength and resilience as a country that most people have always been determined to come together in the face of such extremism and attacks and not to let them divide us.
The Streatham attack highlights a problem. The police, the courts, the security services, the prisons, the rehabilitation and prevention services and the affected communities all need our support and also Government support to keep communities safe. That is why this Bill is justified and needed. When someone has been convicted of terrorism and they are still dangerous to the public, they should not be released early from prison. Before they are released, they must be subjected to a proper Parole Board assessment of whether they still pose a threat. The seriousness of terror events and the dangers of radicalisation mean that the police often rightly intervene before an appalling attack takes place and charge people with preparatory offences, but in some of those cases the police, the security services, the courts and the Prison and Probation Service are all aware that they are dealing with people who are capable of something even more serious.
People have raised concerns about applying these new rules to those currently serving their sentences, and I accept the Government’s legal advice on the fact that the proposal does not change the length of sentences. We have always had administrative rules about the way in which sentences are served. For example, people are out on licence for the bit of the sentence that is served in the community. However, if licence terms are breached, people can be returned to prison to continue their sentence in custody, so that concept of risk is built into the criminal justice system, the system of custody and the system of sentencing. That is why it is right that the Parole Board should be able to assess the risk in such cases, just as they do in many other cases. It is sensible and proportionate.
I have already said to Ministers that it is important that this legislation is drawn up in a way that is robust against legal challenge, particularly to ensure that Parole Board assessments can take place. I agree with both the Lord Chancellor and my hon. Friend the shadow Minister that we must ensure that we keep our communities safe and do what is right while defending the British values of the rule of law and supporting the European convention on human rights—all the very things that terrorists try to undermine and threaten.
I also accept the need for emergency legislation and accept the Government’s warnings that they, the police and security services are concerned about other individuals who might otherwise be released without parole assessment and who they believe are a danger to the public and should not be released early without any kind of assessment. However, it is right to raise a concern that it is not ideal to be making this kind of legislation in a day. It is right that we do so in these circumstances, but the Government must recognise that it is not ideal to rush through legislation breathlessly.
To be honest, there have been many warnings that such an issue was coming down the track, because the Government have known about the problem for some time.  The Home Affairs Committee took evidence from Neil Basu in October 2018 during its consideration of what became the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, and he told us:
“The point that some of our radicalisers are getting short sentences, coming out early, and being able to continue is a problem, as is not having sufficient resources in place to use desistence or disengagement programmes.”

Steve McCabe: I support the legislation, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that it feels a bit like a sticking plaster. The unanswered questions are the danger here. What happens to the people who we keep in prison longer unless there is effective intervention? What confidence can we have that MAPPA levels 2 and 3 are stringently managed and enforced? That is always the issue that must be addressed when such people come out of prison.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is exactly right. There is a danger that we are simply reacting to this situation in a hand-to-mouth way, rather than in a more strategic way that recognises some of the underlying issues that need to be dealt with over a long time. We may need further legislation, but that should be done in a thoughtful way, with proper scrutiny, not left until the last minute and, as a result, done in a breathless rush.

Alicia Kearns: The MAPPA review provides exactly that opportunity. We need this emergency legislation to go through, but it is by reviewing the MAPPA process that we will see results. One of the most crucial changes that I would like to the MAPPA process is to include Prevent co-ordinators in MAPPA meetings, because Prevent co-ordinators can understand that someone newly released has come to their community and say, “That individual is still a threat for the following reasons. I can map this individual against the communities and groups that they might be a risk to.” This emergency legislation is important because, for example, if we had had it in place, Anjem Choudary would still be in prison, but the crucial change will be to MAPPA so that Prevent co-ordinators can know where Anjem Choudary has gone and can therefore provide a relevant analysis of what he will do.

Yvette Cooper: I completely agree. Having a link between Prevent programmes and the MAPPA process is extremely important. There is a question here for the Government about how the MAPPA review and the Prevent review are going to link together. The problem is that we do not have a chair in place for the Prevent review, and I am unsure of the Government’s plans for the timetable for the two different reviews. It might be helpful, in fact, if the Minister were able to say something in his winding-up speech about how the two reviews will interact and how the Prevent review will be put back on track with somebody in place.
What happens before a terrorist incident happens and what happens afterwards—whether that be in prison or probation or in assessment—need to be properly integrated, and the expertise in different parts of the system needs to be pulled together and effectively co-ordinated. We have known for some time that Sudesh Amman was due to be released this January, for example, so we need a more effective system to anticipate the challenges, because there have been previous opportunities to change the legislation.
We also need to address what happens at the end of the sentence, because my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) is right to describe this legislation as a sticking plaster if we do not look more widely. When the Parole Board decides that somebody still poses a serious risk, that person will still, however, have served their time after, say, another couple of years. If they still pose a threat to the public at that point, we still will not have addressed the heart of the problem. The former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Anderson, pointed out that if they are sufficiently dangerous to end up serving their whole sentence in custody, they will not have any further licensing conditions attached at the end of their sentence, nor will they be subject to further supervision.
In the past, we had control orders and imprisonment for public protection sentences to address such circumstances. The Minister will know that I opposed the removal of control orders, and we have had debates about the decision to end rather than just to reform IPPs. However, in their absence, the question for the Government is whether the existing arrangements with TPIMs, for example, are sufficient to address the circumstances for individuals coming out at the end of their sentence, having served the full sentence in custody, with no licence conditions attached. Do the Government have plans to address those individuals should they still prove to be a danger?
There is also a massive problem with what is happening in our prisons. The Chair of the Justice Committee has already raised this, but we do not yet have effective enough deradicalisation programmes in prison. Former public prosecutors have warned that they have been underfunded. Academics point out that some prisoners who are willing to go on deradicalisation programmes wait so long to get on them that they are released before they are able to do so. There are, of course, concerns about the effectiveness of the assessment of deradicalisation programmes, the interaction between programmes that may work in the community but not in prison and the best way to do this.
Nobody should ever pretend that this is easy or that there is a magical response to solve the problems. However, there are real worries that we are not doing everything we could in prisons. The concerns raised by Ian Acheson, who conducted an independent review of Islamist extremism in the Prison and Probation Service, are really serious. He said that frontline prison staff were ill-equipped to handle the situation, prison imams did not possess the tools or the will to tackle extreme ideology, the intelligence gathering system was not working, and there were serious problems of lack of leadership and management and a lack of end-to-end systems. He concluded by saying that, frankly, the prisons are struggling to cope.
I heard what the Lord Chancellor said about things having moved on, but there is a problem in that we cannot judge whether that is right because the Government have refused to publish the entire Acheson report. I understand that there are sensitivities around radicalisation, but even Ian Acheson is not able to say, “Yes, all the problems are being addressed.”
There are continual reports of people being further radicalised in prison. These are cases not where deradicalisation fails but where, in fact, there is greater radicalisation. Non-radicalised people who go into prison  end up being converted not just to Islam but to extreme perversions of the religion that are, in fact, an ideology, not a religion.
A Wigan man was convicted of far-right extremism, but the judge concluded that this person would be vulnerable to further radicalisation and chose not to give him a prison sentence on that basis. We are in a very uneasy situation if our courts are reluctant to give prison sentences because they fear greater radicalisation. The prison system, which is supposed to be keeping us and our communities safe from extremism and terrorist threats, may instead be contributing to the problem and, in some cases, making matters worse.
I do not doubt the huge commitment and hard work of many people across our prison system to try to tackle radicalisation and extremism. However, the evidence we have seen from the outside is that the system simply is not working. It is not enough for the Lord Chancellor simply to give us his word that things have improved if there is no proper system of oversight or checks and balances to ensure that progress is being made. I urge the Lord Chancellor and the Minister to talk to the Justice Committee about what more can be done to ensure proper oversight so that we can be sure we are making progress on what is happening both inside and outside prisons.
We all have a shared interest in ensuring that extremists and terrorists are not able to threaten our way of life, to put people’s lives at risk or to threaten our communities and our democracy. There has often been cross-party consensus on the need to take a sensible approach to ensuring we protect both people’s safety and the values that terrorists challenge—the values of the rule of law and our democratic institutions. We need to challenge their ideology and work ever harder to make sure the systems that are supposed to address this can properly do so.
It is therefore not a surprise that we have cross-party consensus in support of the Bill today. This is a sensible and proportionate response to keep people safe and to address a genuine problem to which the criminal system has to adjust and adapt. It is also imperative on us all to work further across parties to address some of the deeper, longer-term problems, on which the Government need to do more. I hope we will be able to work across parties on addressing those longer-term challenges so that we can do a better job of keeping us safe.

Bill Cash: I follow the line taken by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on the cross-party consensus that is needed in passing this Bill.
However, as I have already indicated in a number of interventions, I am concerned about the restrictive and restricted nature of this Bill. We should get the Justice Committee to look at the longer-term issues raised by these incidents, murders and terrorist offences. I entirely understand why this Bill has been introduced, and I support it. I am glad the House, as a whole, has clearly indicated the same.
We have to take these problems seriously, as they are deeply entrenched in parts of our society, and they will continue. They will not change just because this emergency legislation has been passed. The Bill will have a limited effect, so we need a longer-term assessment of the real problems that underpin it.
In response to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), I mentioned the state of mind of some of the people concerned and the question whether, in certain cases, it is evidence of some degree of insanity, of a drug-affected mind or of mental disturbance on such a scale as to impinge on the question of mens rea. We do not have time to go into all of it this afternoon, but I want such longer-term assessments because some of these people, from whatever part of society, have had to be confined to Broadmoor and other similar secure places because of their mental state. I put that on the record as a suggestion that needs to be taken up by the Justice Committee and, indeed, other Committees.
I also raised in an intervention that, for me, this Bill does not answer the question why automatic early release, with the agreement of the Parole Board, should be moved from halfway to two thirds of a sentence. In circumstances where we are dealing with public safety and human life, I do not see why two thirds should be chosen as a boundary line. There are circumstances in very severe cases where I do not believe there should be any release at all, for the reasons I have already touched on in relation to certain people’s instability of mind.

Alicia Kearns: Does my hon. Friend agree that terrorists are traitors? They have declared this country their enemy, and they have declared he and I, and civilians, as legitimate targets to be murdered and assaulted on our streets. I therefore agree entirely that they should serve at least their full sentence. We should be looking at far longer sentences than just 14 years.

Bill Cash: My hon. Friend touches on a point that I raised several years ago, shortly after the infamous, terrible murder of Lee Rigby. On the question of persons returning to this country from ISIS, I told the House that, as far as I was concerned, the issue of their return should be evaluated in accordance with article 8 of the convention on the reduction of statelessness, which makes it clear that a person can be made stateless if they give allegiance to another country—the caliphate could be regarded as such in this context. I accept this is controversial, but the United States, for example, already applies article 8 in that way. If the person in question gives allegiance to another country, by definition they have moved into the zone of treason and have deliberately and voluntarily abdicated their allegiance to this country. I put that on the record because we have to take these matters extremely seriously, and I attempted to make such an amendment to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. This is about not just external activities, but internal ones, within our domestic law, so we need to take this incredibly seriously. That is why I am appealing for this longer term assessment of all these questions, including the one my hon. Friend has raised, because it is so important and cannot just be put into a category of “rather extravagant thinking”. This is really serious.
As I said earlier, human life and public safety are much more important than the question whether the courts may or may not interpret a particular provision in a more fashionable judicial interpretation than we ought to expect of our courts. I go further and say that human life is more important than any legal interpretation of human rights, which is why I have tabled my  amendments. I imagine that the Committee stage will be pretty truncated, so I am not going to go into this in Committee in the detail that I will now. As this is a Second Reading issue and a matter of principle, let me say that we should include in the Bill, in clause 1, the exclusion of the Human Rights Act 1998. I have something of a history in that respect, but so do the Foreign Secretary and many others, such as the distinguished Martin Howe, QC. We were regarded as highly unfashionable some years ago, but issues of the kind that gravitate around the Bill have drawn attention to the fact that we have to take these matters really seriously. I understand that the Bingham Centre has made a number of representations on the matter, and there are clear indications that there are lawyers of some notoriety, if not distinction, who will seek to overturn the provisions of this Bill by going to the courts. I deplore the fact that they would seek to do so.
I am looking forward to the discussion in the House of Lords on this matter, because there are distinguished lawyers on all sides of the debate in that House, who, with the greatest respect to all of us here in the House of Commons, have been practising at the Bar, have been in the Supreme Court and so on. They will be able to bring to bear the right degree of analysis of the case law, which needs to be looked at carefully in this context.

John Hayes: As ever, my hon. Friend is making a compelling case. I suggest to him that this requires a more fundamental review of the characteristic and extent of rights, and how they relate to citizenship, duty, responsibility and the public good. I wonder what he thinks of that.

Bill Cash: That is an extremely important point. As my right hon. Friend knows, I have the greatest respect for his analysis when it moves from not just the law into the broader societal and philosophical questions, which ought to inform opinions made in this House; we should not just treat issues of this kind as if they are somehow matters of semantics. We are dealing with the kind of society that we want and the impact of the terrorism, and murderous and dangerous behaviour, of the perpetrators of these crimes our own constituents. A most recent case involved somebody who travelled from Stafford down to London, and therefore was a matter of immediate concern to my constituents, because he had been living there for some time. The manner in which he was allowed to leave to come down to London and commit murder in Fishmongers’ Hall and in the vicinity is a lesson for us all.
I now want to deal with the retrospectivity elements of this Bill, which relate to my general concern to tie down this issue in the longer term. The Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and I had an exchange about a number of cases. I am well aware that this is not the place for us to attempt to make an assumption that we are able to treat this Chamber as though it is a court of law, although we are, of course, the High Court of Parliament, but that is to miss the point; the fact is that proper analysis of the case law has to be conducted. Some of that has already been done in blogging and in some pamphlets, and I am expecting the House of Lords to home in on it effectively when the Bill gets to that House, although it will not have much time.
We know that Ministers have been warned about the likelihood of a legal battle; despite the assertions of the Government that the Bill is compatible with article 7 of the European convention on human rights—for reasons that I will explain, I am sympathetic to their view—there are those who will argue that it is not. I can see this coming, so my amendment would remove any chance that there could be that kind of legal battle on the applicability of the Human Rights Act to this Bill. My amendment would insert the words
“notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”.
That is a belt-and-braces approach, and it is what I am seeking. I am not going to move this amendment in Committee with any intention of dividing the Committee of the whole House on it; I think the matter needs further consideration outside this House, and I look to the House of Lords for some indication of views.
My argument goes like this: this Bill is compatible with article 7. No one has read it out so far, so I will do so. It states:
“No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence”—
for conduct —
“which did not constitute a criminal offence…at the time when it was committed.”
This Bill does not purport to create a new criminal offence. Rather, it seeks to prevent terrorists convicted by UK courts on the basis of offences that existed prior to the Bill from having automatic early release. I have already made my point about the length of time indicated. Furthermore, the explanatory notes state:
“The Bill does not retrospectively alter a serving offender’s sentence as imposed by the court, or alter the maximum penalties for offences.”
They state that the Bill is concerned with the “administration of a sentence”. I still believe, despite the exchanges I had with the Chairman of the Justice Committee, that the del Río Prada case could well still come into play there. I fear that it might be used effectively against the Bill. So my conclusion on the question of a textual interpretation of article 7 of the ECHR indicates that is not incompatible with this Bill. However, Parliament does have the power to legislate retrospectively—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I just want to let the hon. Gentleman know that I am sure he will have the opportunity in Committee to address his amendment. I am sure he will be aware that there are quite a few people who wish to speak on Second Reading; I just want to assure him that he will be able to address his amendment during the Committee stage.

Bill Cash: I do understand that, but I also anticipate that there may be a need for brevity at that point. That is how these things go, from my experience, which goes back some time. I am talking about matters of principle. I repeat: I am talking about matters of principle.
As established by Willes J in Phillips v. Eyre, courts ascribe retrospective force to new laws that affect rights only if
“by express words or necessary implication that such was the intention of the legislature”.
Clause 1 will amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and expressly restrict eligibility for the release of prisoners who have been sentenced for a terrorist offence
“whether before or after this section comes into force”.
My conclusion on this point is simple: the courts would be expected to give retrospective effect to the Bill.
The principle I wish to address is that I am concerned that the courts have a disinclination and reluctance to give effect to retrospective legislation, particularly when it deals with criminal acts. That is well established, and I could quote Bradley and Ewing, page 56, which explains that. Although I do not think that article 7 applies to the Bill, to ensure that the courts do not find a way around the Bill or a misguided interpretation that would frustrate its real purpose, I shall move my amendment in Committee, for the purposes of legislative clarity and for the avoidance of doubt in relation to the power of Parliament to legislate retrospectively. That is the principle that I am addressing at this moment.
I have no further comment to make for the purposes of this debate, but this matter has to be taken seriously. The wording that I intend to introduce in Committee will be taken as a serious attempt to make sure that no way around the provisions is found by the courts or by some ingenious lawyers, who would avoid and frustrate the purposes and principle of the Bill, as expressed on Second Reading, which we are debating.

Gavin Robinson: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). He referred to lawyers of some “notoriety” rather than, perhaps, remarkable lawyers; he is not the former. He has raised in the House the considerations relating to his amendment, so should this matter ever reach the courts for adjudication, the courts may, having been served with notice that the wording he proposes in his amendment should have been in the Bill, be even more inclined to accept the argument, knowing that Parliament was fully apprised of the considerations and had the opportunity so to heed the advice. That said, it was pragmatic of the hon. Member to indicate that although he may move his amendment, he may not force it to a vote, hoping instead that it is considered in the other place. I understand why he did that.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate, which has been incredibly positive so far. We have been considering a serious issue, but every Member who has spoken so far has done so with a determination— in recognition of the difficulties that we have faced as a society from terrorism in responding appropriately, pragmatically, sensibly and swiftly—that this debate should add to the response that we as a Parliament should bring.
It was of benefit to hear from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), if I may mention him specifically. He is new to the House, but he has incredible knowledge of a parliamentary approach to early release. He did not refer to any individual cases in his remarks, but Members should know that the hon. Member has been through the political, practical, public and moral rigours of early release for those engaged in terrorist offences. We have benefited from his insight.
Reference has been made already to the contributions from the former reviewers of terrorism and terrorist legislation, Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile, the latter of whom has indicated that he believes that the Bill will be subject to legal challenge. Of course, that may be right, but I do not think that ultimately the House should fear that. It is appropriate that if people feel this  legislation is incompatible with the European convention on human rights they get the opportunity to challenge it in the courts, but the Lord Chancellor expertly took the House through all the implications as to whether article 7 is engaged. It is surely engaged, but not in a fundamentally flawed way. It is fair for us to say that, yes, there are the considerations that we have discussed this afternoon and that will be discussed in another place and in the courts, but I believe that ultimately this Bill is the right approach for Parliament to take.
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) rightly referred to the comments of Lord Anderson QC. It was entirely appropriate for Lord Anderson to say that should this process, through this Bill, exhaust the opportunity for licence, compliance and control within the public sector and society at large, that would be a missed opportunity. We need to be alive to that in this debate. I think the Lord Chancellor nodded when he was considering TPIMs and the protective measures that have been in place and that could be put to good use. Licensing and rehabilitation are important parts of the criminal justice process, so the retention of someone in custody, without giving them the opportunity under control orders, is something that we should think about. We should recognise that if somebody spends the entirety of their sentence in custody without any control on release, that places an even bigger burden on our security services, when other aspects of the criminal justice system should be more appropriately engaged in monitoring, surveying and ensuring compliance and the rehabilitation of offenders who have been brought before the courts previously.
As a representative from Northern Ireland, I must focus on the fact that the Bill does not apply to our jurisdiction. The Lord Chancellor did proffer a view—I think this fairly reflects his comments—that the way we calculate sentences in Northern Ireland means that although the Bill does not fundamentally or injuriously engage article 7 considerations in England and Wales or Scotland, it would in Northern Ireland. I would be keen to explore that in greater detail with the Minister somewhere else. I do not think it would be appropriate to do that on the Floor of the House this afternoon, but it is worthy of further interrogation. I do not challenge what the Lord Chancellor said on the Floor of the House, believing what he said to be true, but I am not sure that what was indicated is right, nor indeed do I believe that it was the totality of the issues that may have been under consideration in connection with the Bill and its application to Northern Ireland. I say that as somebody who has contributed to many debates on terrorism and who lamented the fact that the counter-extremism strategy was introduced in this place and similarly did not apply to Northern Ireland.
The House knows the history that we in Northern Ireland have had in respect of both terrorism and extremism. I have made the point in the Chamber before that as a Member of Parliament for four and a half years I have seen a member of my own constituency murdered by the Provisional IRA, an organisation that most in the Chamber would believe does not exist any more; a prison officer in my constituency was murdered by dissident republicans through an under-car booby-trap bomb; and in January last year, a father was murdered  by loyalist paramilitaries in my constituency. In four and a half years, we have had three individual murders by three different paramilitary terrorist organisations, at a time of peace. So it does jar, whenever we lend our weight—give our support—to counter-terrorism measures in this place, that we are not incorporated.
Members who have an interest in Northern Ireland affairs will be aware that the political process and the Good Friday agreement led to the early release of terrorist prisoners in Northern Ireland and that there were two protections. Everyone was released on licence, and legislative provision was made for those licences to be revoked if it was the view of the Secretary of State that the person had engaged in activity that was leaning towards paramilitary or terrorist activity yet again: the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001.
In preparation for the introduction of this Bill, I tabled questions to the Northern Ireland Office to ask how many people who had been jailed in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorist activity had been released and had their licence subsequently revoked because of their activity. One answer, on the 1998 Act, was that two licences had been revoked since 1998, but I got the most obtuse answer on those who had licences revoked under the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order.
When you are trying to paint a picture, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you are trying to do research to understand where we have had parallel experiences in the past and where people have been released for altogether different political reasons and under a different political settlement but have had licences revoked because they re-engaged in terrorist activity, it is important that this House has those figures. The answer, from 2001 to 2020, was that policing and justice was devolved in 2010.
That answer tells us nothing. I think it entirely discourteous to me, as a Member of Parliament seeking information, and to the House. It does not answer the question about 2001 to 2010 and it does not answer the question about licences revoked under national security considerations—information that would have been appropriate and important to inform us during the passage of the Bill.

Bill Cash: I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I wonder whether steps are being taken to raise these matters, not only as he is doing in Westminster, but also now in Stormont. Is that now under consideration in the context of the Bill?

Gavin Robinson: That is a very fair question. When national security considerations are engaged—so that relates to terrorism—the devolved institutions at Stormont do not have a role; that remains the competence of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. But there are issues that I want to pursue, and I hope the Minister will give a commitment that we can have a discussion about article 7 and how it is engaged differently, in a way that makes the Bill incompatible with the European convention on human rights but not in England, Scotland or Wales.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think you know our position when it comes to legislation to protect society and curtail the excesses of those who want to frustrate everything we value in the United Kingdom—the positive values and principles that we hold dear in this Parliament  and in this place. We will support this Bill and I am grateful for the opportunity to make those ancillary comments about Northern Ireland, which I hope help to set this debate in context.

John Hayes: Except for love infused by hope, fear is the most vivid of emotions. Love is perhaps more readily remembered, but fear is more easily envisaged, because fear in itself is the imagining of horror that might happen. That is why provoking fear has been the instrument of bullies, thugs, despots and torturers through the ages—to terrorise, hurt, harm, maim and murder is designed to intimidate each and all of us and to undermine the certainty of order that underpins social solidarity.
Today the provisions we debate are designed to revisit the means of re-establishing order and to reassure the virtuous that the wicked will not succeed. The Secretary of State described in his opening remarks the metamorphosis of terrorism—the fact that it is constantly changing, and so becoming harder to counter. There are obvious changes: the adaptability—the flexibility—of terrorists, and the instruments used to terrorise are altering. The spontaneity of terrorism is altering, too. The business of the security services and the police, and the legislation that underpins their business, must be just as flexible—must adapt to meet the changing character of terrorism.
The security services and the police, as I learned when I was the Security Minister, constantly refine what they do to anticipate and counter fanaticism, but early release is bound to undermine their morale, as well as to stretch their capacity. The number of subjects of interest, leaving aside those that have been released from prison early, already presents an extraordinary challenge to our security services and police, as we know from various debates that we have had and various reports on this matter, about which time prevents me from going into detail. Simultaneously, public faith in the rule of law is critical, and I suspect that most of our constituents would be amazed that we have released so many terrorist convicts early. I think they would regard that with disbelief. That we have allowed formulaic leniency to characterise the treatment of convicted terrorists is extraordinary, and in my judgment unacceptable.
It is not as if there had not been warnings, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said. In 2018, signals were sent that this would have the kind of consequences that we have now met with horror. The Government are acting decisively in response, to reinforce the legislative powers necessary to allow the police and the security services to protect the public. Public safety, as has been said repeatedly, is the heart of this business.
I suspect that, as the Chair of the Justice Committee said, the enhanced role for parole boards will require greater expertise. The measurement of risk will also change, as the character of terrorism and our response to it changes. We need to be able to assess risk, as we always have, in respect of early release, for parole is about measurement of risk—it always has been—but it is also rooted in the idea that someone who is going to be released early deserves to be released and will not create further harm and danger. I believe that the rehabilitative aspect of criminal justice is accepted across the Chamber, but the retributive aspect of justice should be accepted, too. This is also about punishment—about  punishing guilty people who have, through due process, been found to have done the most awful, horrendous, things, and we should not be ashamed to say that.
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was pleased and proud, as Security Minister, to guide the Investigatory Powers Bill—the 2016 Act—through the House. That Bill struck a balance between the protection of the public and the necessary safeguards that should always be applied when we are limiting people’s freedoms—maintaining the tenets of a free society and defending those freedoms from the anarchy of fear and disorder.
Since that time, many people have been released early. I shall be brief because I am anxious to allow others to contribute, but before I conclude I shall look at the numbers. I consulted the Library, as good Members of this House do, and was surprised and disappointed to find that since 2013 something like 163 convicted terrorists had been released early. By the way, I excluded from my considerations anyone who had been serving a sentence of less than a year, so those are just the people serving a sentence of somewhere between 12 months and more than four years. Therefore, leaving aside short sentences, the more serious terrorist prisoners had been released in significant numbers. Just imagine the effect on our Security Service and police of having to deal with the consequences of those releases.
Some of those released will have been rehabilitated and deradicalised, but we know that that does not always happen. I strongly support the legislation, which strikes the right balance. Ordered societies are built on the protection and promotion of shared public interest and the defence of the common good. To face down terrorism and the fear that it spawns, and to face up to our responsibility to protect the people we serve, we should support this legislation as it progresses through the House. I anticipate that it will be necessary to challenge those who seek to undermine it on the grounds of advocating the rights of certain people. We in the House of Commons must stand together to defend the common good and promote the national interest.

Khalid Mahmood: It is always a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I was privileged to work with him when he was Minister for Security—a time he mentioned in his speech.
My thoughts are with the victims of all terrorist attacks and their families, and I recognise the hardship that they have all gone through. It is important, in this debate and in any debate on the subject, that we remember those who have suffered incredibly because of our failures as parliamentarians, failures of our legislation and failures in the support with which we provide people.
There are two issues to consider: resources for our Prison Service, and the things behind that—the soft power, which we need to get right. It is not enough to extend sentences; we have to put right the things behind that. That is what I want to concentrate on. Of course we should look at the number of prison officers and the support they get—a point my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) rightly made. It is important to ensure the right corrective controls in the prison framework. At the moment, we are failing on that. We need to get that right, get proper resourcing, and move forward.
A lot of Members spoke about imams coming into prisons. The issue is twofold; there is the question of psychotherapy and counselling for the people they are visiting, and the need to tackle those people’s misguided version of Islam. They do not practise Islam; they practise what they believe is Islam. Islam in itself is a peaceful religion.

Jonathan Gullis: As a religious education teacher, I concur with the hon. Member’s viewpoint. In no way do the radical views of this small minority reflect the views of Islam. I am glad he raised this point; it is important that we ensure that it comes across in our national media and in national debates.

Khalid Mahmood: I thank the hon. Member for his contribution.
How do we assess and work with these radicalised people? A lot has been made of deradicalisation, but we need the right people, theologically speaking, to do it. We do not have a principal education facility to train imams who go into prisons. I had a friend who was deputy governor at HMP Birmingham. The prison brought in an imam to try to speak to somebody who was radicalising the rest of the inmates. After a two-hour one-to-one, the imam came out saying, “I think I agree with the inmate.” That was due to the so-called imam’s lack of knowledge. Just because someone calls themselves an imam, it does not mean that they are able to deal with this important issue.

Julian Lewis: Is the situation not even a little worse than that? There have been reports of imams from the Deobandi sect of Salafists being allowed access to prisoners.

Khalid Mahmood: The right hon. Member speaks from experience of these issues. He is quite right to say that. It is very difficult for those who do not understand religion to put people into places of religious control and support. That is my clear point. We should have proper registration of people who go into these institutions. Anybody who goes into them should be required to have the proper qualifications and certifications, yet we let most people walk in, and we say that they can do this job. We have heard stories of radicalisation being perpetuated in certain prisons by some of the people who have gone into them. It is important that we look at how we move forward.

John Hayes: I intervene partly to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the good work that he has done in this field over a considerable time. He points out the difference between Islamism and Islam—a difference too rarely identified by our media, as he says. Perhaps a review of all the Prison Service’s work on the appointment of imams and their work in prisons should be part of the Government’s ongoing plans to address the issue.

Khalid Mahmood: Again, I concur with the right hon. Member. As for the Government moving forward on this, for the past 10 years we have not paid enough attention to what has gone on. We need to look at this seriously. The two incidents we are considering, as well as others, and the potential release of other prisoners have brought the issue to our attention.
A big functional issue in prison is how we position inmates. The Acheson report looks at segregating these prisoners. How to deradicalise is a really big issue. If we put these prisoners all together, they become a group. If we put them with other prisoners, they radicalise them. We cannot keep prisoners on their own, because human rights law does not allow that. There is no magic wand of deradicalisation. We have to take the issue very seriously. We have to get the right people, with the right understanding. Good work has been done in Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia on ways of deradicalising. We have to learn lessons from how those countries are proceeding, in order to address these issues. We have to go further in looking at those methods, whether they are relevant, and how they relate to what the community wants to do.
We have to look not just at prisons, but at external departments that deal with the issue. We have to consider education, under what licences we allow madrassahs to operate—if they have a licence at all. The only consideration for a local authority in granting permission for a madrassah is whether it would cause traffic congestion. If an applicant clears that hurdle, they can have one. No heed is given to the qualifications of the imam; there is no proper scrutiny of their past; and there are no security checks. Those are very important issues for us to look at in deciding how we move forward.
As for the people we know of, they are the tip of the iceberg. There is still significant radicalisation taking place, and we need to address that in the community. Radicalisation is progressing in prisons because there is a captive audience there. We need to move forward. We need to look at the availability of resources in prisons, because the resources that are required to deal with this problem are quite significant
While we are looking at Islamic extremism, we also need to look at far-right extremism. If this Bill is to apply to terrorists, it must also apply to far-right extremists —it is important that that is said. The contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) made a lot of sense. I pay tribute to her for the great work that she has done on these issues, including as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. She deserves commendation for the great balance with which she has worked on these matters. It is important for that work to move forward.
It is also important to look at how we police these issues. As my right hon. Friend said, we need to look again at control orders for when people come out of prison. In the past 10 years, we have forgotten about control orders. We need to get back to that issue, look at what is valid and appropriate, and see how we can move forward. That is hugely important.
I support the Bill because it is necessary for us to move forward with the resources currently available to us, but we need to have a much deeper look at how to resolve this issue for all our communities in the long term.

Paul Holmes: I will speak briefly about why I welcome the Bill and why I believe it is necessary to tackle the issues on which many hon. Members have made very good speeches this afternoon. May I first congratulate the Prime Minister, the Lord  Chancellor and Ministers from the Department on the constructive and decisive action that they have taken? I pay particular tribute to the Labour party and the shadow Solicitor General for supporting this measure, which I think shows the importance of the subject.
As the Lord Chancellor said, the first duty of any Government is to keep their people safe, and this Bill goes some way to increasing the likelihood that that will happen. It increases the likelihood of ending the uncertainty for victims, their families and those who have been affected by these atrocities, and it will go some way to restoring the confidence of my constituents and people across the country in the sentencing guidelines for people who commit these most hideous crimes.
I want briefly to talk about how terrorism affects everybody, directly or indirectly. There are two occasions in particular that stick in my mind. The first was 7/7. I was 15 years old at the time and—I hope hon. Members do not tell me off—I chose that day not to go into school. I remember the breaking news coming through on the television. My father was working in London at that time. In fact, my family were all working in London; I am a Londoner. I remember trying to make some phone calls to see whether they were okay. For some reason, I got a crossed line and got through to a lady when I called my father’s phone. This woman was trying to find out where her daughter was because she was using the tube that morning. She was terrified, fearful and concerned about where her daughter was. We spoke for just two minutes, but I tried to reassure her and she reassured me.
The other occasion was the Westminster Bridge attack, which happened while I was a special adviser to Sir Patrick McLoughlin. I was walking up Whitehall when the shots were fired and was locked down in the Cabinet Office. Sir Patrick was locked down in here. Members of my family were desperately trying to find out whether I was okay, and I was trying to find out whether friends in this House and around the Chamber were okay. I mention both those occasions to show that we are all affected by terrorism.
Terrorism spreads fear, harms lives and, most importantly, costs lives. But this Bill goes some way to giving some reassurance to the victims, families and people who are affected by terrorism that those who commit these crimes will go to prison and stay there. Sadly, we cannot say with certainty that attacks such as the ones I have mentioned will not happen again. We all know that; I am afraid that it is the nature of the beast.

Chris Clarkson: My hon. Friend spoke extremely eloquently about his own experiences in London. Greater Manchester has certainly experienced its fair share of terrorism, including the 1996 bombing and the atrocity at Manchester Arena just three years ago. Does he agree that the terror does not just stop with the initial act, and that by restricting early release we are at least giving the family some comfort, some measure of protection from the damaging effects of the attacks and a chance to heal?

Paul Holmes: I absolutely agree. As my hon. Friend represents a constituency from that region, he will have seen the concern and fear that went across the region at the time of those attacks. That is absolutely why the Bill is necessary. May I pay tribute—as I should have done at the beginning of my speech—to the security services, the  police and all those in the emergency services across the country who have to deal with these incidents? I also pay tribute and my respects to the victims and their families.
As I said, we cannot say with certainty that something like this will not happen again, but we can give certainty to people across the country that the perpetrators of these crimes are put away and kept away, with the reassurance that if they are, in consultation with the Parole Board, released two thirds of the way through their sentence, they will be monitored properly and in conjunction with the Parole Board.
Colleagues in all parts of the House will have their own memories of attacks like these, as do so many of us who live or work in London. We must never forget those who have lost their lives due to the barbaric actions of terrorists. We must also never let the spectre of terrorism stop us from living well. The aim of terrorism, as I have outlined, is to spread fear. I am enormously proud that the people of London—I am originally a Londoner—are not allowing these attacks to succeed by making us too afraid to go about our daily lives. This Bill goes some way towards removing the fear of victims, because the killers in these cases will serve their sentences and be monitored properly. The involvement of the Parole Board is absolutely essential, and I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for outlining that.
We must question why these attacks happen. The perpetrators of the attack at London Bridge in November and of this month’s attack in Streatham were both released from prison automatically at the halfway point of their sentence, with no involvement from the Parole Board, to serve the rest of their sentence on licence. The fact that they were able to commit these atrocities shows that this approach must be changed, and that is why I am glad that the Government are doing so with this Bill. It is vital that automatic release is not applied to those convicted of terrorism offences and that the Parole Board is involved in each of these cases to assess whether or not these people should be released.
However, I do ask for some reassurance from the Minister on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). If the perpetrators of these attacks serve a full sentence or go through release in consultation with the Parole Board, we must not see that as the end of the journey. Rehabilitation, and a reassurance to people across this country that these people are being watched and monitored, is absolutely vital. We do not want another Streatham to happen. We know that this guy was on the records of the security services. Despite these actions being taken, it is absolutely vital that we have some reassurance that we will go further to make sure that these people are being monitored adequately.
These changes will not only make us safer but give the public more confidence in the ability of our criminal justice system to deal with terrorists. This is a valuable and much-needed piece of legislation. Moreover, it is the right thing to do. The Lord Chancellor is right to take action and should be congratulated on doing so swiftly. That is why I will support the Bill this evening.

Daisy Cooper: I, too, put on record my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who has kept me updated in recent days.
In the wake of the two recent terrorist attacks, it is absolutely right that the Government look at the legal framework to decide whether it is adequate. Like the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes), I was caught up in the 7/7 bombing. I was on one of the tube trains behind the one that was blown up at Russell Square, and I remember the unbearable heat that came from the blast. I was also in this place during the Westminster lockdown. The hon. Gentleman is right that many of us have been affected by acts of terrorism, but with respect, many of us nevertheless come to this debate with slightly different views.
This Bill does three things. First, it brings about an end to automatic release and applies that retrospectively. That is overdue, but very welcome. Liberal Democrats have said before, and we say again, that this part of the law is currently wrong, and it is right that this House seeks to change it. The Government are rushing this Bill through to get to Royal Assent before the end of the month and before the scheduled release of other terrorists. However, this part of the Bill alone, on ending automatic release and applying that retrospectively, would achieve the Government’s goal—and, indeed, the priority of all of us to keep the public safe. This part of the Bill alone would stop the release of terrorists without Parole Board agreement. It would be possible to adopt just that part of the Bill for it to be a change in the administration of a sentence in a way that is compatible with the rule of law.
However, the Bill tries to do two other things that, I think it is fair to say, are problematic. The second thing it tries to do is move the point of release from the halfway point to the two-thirds point for future offences. Of course, it is the natural instinct of all of us to have bad people locked up for longer, but who would want somebody locked up for longer if there was evidence that that could in fact make them more radicalised and more dangerous at the point that they are released?

John Hayes: That is not an argument about the length of the sentence; that is an argument about how people are dealt with when they are incarcerated.

Daisy Cooper: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. Much of the evidence suggests that what helps the deradicalisation process is not only how people are treated when they are incarcerated, but the amount of time they have on licence in order to find a home, rebuild family connections and do all the activity outside prison. There is evidence to suggest that the time on licence can make more of a difference to reducing reoffending rates and deradicalising people.

Julian Lewis: Can we think about specifics? The last two attacks were very different. As I said in an earlier intervention, the second of the two attacks was by someone who was clearly mentally deranged. The earlier attack was by someone who appeared to have taken all the deradicalisation on board and to be a model prisoner. We have to recognise that we are dealing with a kaleidoscope of personalities, not necessarily people who have been fooled by something and who can reasonably be brought out of that situation.

Daisy Cooper: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point, which relates to both capacity and what can be done in prisons and while prisoners are on licence to ensure that they are deradicalised and to assess their behaviours.
As I was saying, there is currently no evidence that longer periods in prison have any rehabilitative effect, and there is some evidence to suggest that they might be counterproductive. For all of us who put national and public safety first, that should be very worrying.
The third element of the Bill is retrospectivity. Retrospectively applying the first part of the Bill, to end automatic release, is fine, but retrospectively moving the release point is problematic. The Government and some Members today have pointed to individual parts of case law, but there is a long-established principle against the retrospectivity of criminal laws. The Government have suggested that this is only about changing the administration of a sentence, whereas legal commentators have pointed out that the Bill arguably also changes the scope of the penalty. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law said in its briefing circulated to Members this morning:
“By effectively overturning judicial decisions about sentencing the Bill also comes uncomfortably close to legislative interference with the judicial function.”
The last point that I wish to address is the speed with which the Bill moves forward and the reasons for it. As I said, nobody wants these prisoners to be automatically released, and the first part of the Bill would tackle that and keep the public safe, but there is a reason why we debate and scrutinise laws in both Houses and have specialist Committees to look at our laws. We know that fast law can make bad law, and there is an even greater risk of that happening when four of the parliamentary Committees that would have scrutinised the Bill—the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Affairs Committee, the Justice Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee—have not yet been appointed.

Imran Ahmad Khan: Does the hon. Lady recognise that, although policy should be based on evidence and research, that is not necessarily a good thing in the context of terrorism, where we have an evolving set of threats? With evidence-based research, it can be four years before we formulate and implement policy, by which time the threat has invariably moved on. We therefore need to employ a broader range of measures, including the use of specialists in the interrogation of those who deceive, to bolster the ability of the Parole Board, and training material for prison officers and those involved in deradicalisation. Speed is required in order to adapt, so I support the Government’s position, because an evidence-based approach is not appropriate in this context.

Daisy Cooper: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, in my opening remarks, I made the point that this was a very overdue change. In fact, we have had many years where we have seen the effects of increased radicalisation in prison simply because of a lack of resources both for our prisons and for our parole service, so he is right to point to that element.
That leads me very nicely to my next point: because of the speed of the passage of the Bill, there is not sufficient opportunity for prelegislative scrutiny. I would argue that, in the absence of adequate prelegislative  scrutiny, hon. Members should all sign up to a system of post-legislative scrutiny. Others in this debate have called for a review mechanism. The Government say there is other legislation coming down the line, but we know that legislation can slip, so I will finish by asking the Government to think again about this particular point to make sure that we have sufficient post-legislative scrutiny and that this law—

John Hayes: I waited to intervene until a point at which I agreed with the hon. Lady, because I thought that was in the spirit of this debate. She is right about the need to review these provisions, but as she said a moment ago, any number of Committees will be able to do that in the course of time. We can move ahead with rapidity to defend the public, and then look at these matters in the round through the processes she has set out.

Daisy Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman is right that this legislation will of course be scrutinised in due course, but it is vital and right, because we are moving on with it so quickly, that we write into law a statutory review in one year’s time.
I conclude by saying that there is a danger that the Bill will become a law of unintended consequences. In summary, we welcome the end to automatic release and doing so retrospectively—that is a good move—but we have concerns about changing the release point, particularly if that ends up allowing people to be released who are more dangerous than before. There are also questions to answer about the impact on the rule of law in applying retrospectivity to the release point.

Duncan Baker: This Government are putting their money where their mouth is and doing exactly what they said they would do to deal with this urgent and specific problem, and I want to thank everybody who has helped put this Bill together.
Following the attack in Streatham, the Government committed to introducing emergency legislation to ensure that terrorist offenders, including those currently serving, will no longer be released early and automatically. The House would not think that, back in my home of North Norfolk, terrorism is much of a problem. I still remember, many years ago, when we were the first business in the community to take out terrorism insurance, and we wondered at the time why we were doing it. Look how times have changed. It is exactly why we need this Bill today.
Sadly, terrorism continues to be a sickening and cowardly set of acts that ruins lives, killing innocent people and devastating communities in our incredible country. We will not let the terrorists win; nor will we allow extremist behaviour to divide our nation. Many Conservatives are here, and we all stood on a manifesto in which we pledged a raft of measures to crack down on crime and to introduce tougher sentences. I guess I speak for everybody here when I say that we are pleased that these are well on their way.
This Bill is needed to do just that—to ensure our country feels safe. It is a fundamental job of government to help to protect their citizens. Those who wish to hurt us must not be released early, so I welcome the end of halfway release for terrorist offenders and that offenders cannot be released without serving a minimum of two thirds  of their sentence. Indeed, no terrorist offender will be released before the end of the full custodial term unless the Parole Board agrees, and that is absolutely right. I also welcome measures to rehabilitate and deradicalise. Society must always have measures in place to help eradicate ideologies. Education will play a vital role in that, and we need the resources to enable that properly, as well as work on the root causes of terrorism.
For some people, however, there is no way back, and it is right that those terrorists who are considered to be a continuing threat to public safety spend the rest of their time in prison. As we invest in prison capacity, I welcome tougher sentences, and a new minimum sentence of 14 years for the worst terrorist offenders. Sadly, terrorism is still prevalent in the world today, but it must not prevail. The Government must show, not just to the public, but to the terrorists, that we will not tolerate such despicable acts and that radicals who are prepared to commit such acts will pay for them with longer, tougher sentences and with the loss of that basic right to freedom that they took away from the people they harmed.
I welcome the fact that the Government will increase counter-terrorism funding to £906 million, which represents a £90 million year-on-year increase. Victims must also be supported, and the immediate investment of £500,000 to increase the support provided by the victims of terrorism unit shows the Government’s determination to ensure that more victims receive the support and advice they deserve. I am always proud of the way that the British people bravely come together in the face of such attacks and show beyond doubt that terrorism will never defeat the British spirit. I also pay an enormous tribute to the policing forces who look after us day after day and who risk their lives to protect us—not least those who serve in this building—and I commend the Bill to the House.

Bob Seely: For several years now, people in the security world have been privately warning that we face the release of a bulge of extremist prisoners, after the first wave, 10 or 15 years ago, of significant and serious terror attacks in our country. Of those who committed the two recent attacks, one terrorist had a short-term sentence and may not have been part of that group, but one certainly was and had been through a rehabilitation process.
I wish to raise some issues, and I hope that the Minister will either write to me or respond to them at the end of the debate. I will also refer to recent articles by Ian Acheson, who has pertinent things to say—he has been referred to by a number of Members across the House.
Ian Acheson recently argued that the system for managing extremist prisoners—there are about 220 in our system overall—is still flawed. Indeed, he described it as “broken”, and argued that evidence for that came out at the trial of Mohiussannath Chowdhury, who was recently convicted of preparing acts of terrorism.
Acheson described Chowdhury’s time at Belmarsh as a form of finishing school where he freely associated with other jihadis, including people who were serving a minimum of 30 or 34 years in prison. He said that Chowdhury regarded what he considered to be a crude, deradicalisation programme as “laughable” and that within days of his release he was planning new attacks  and waiting for others to be released from prison. What reassurance can the Lord Chancellor provide to show that we are moving on from that position?
This issue has been of significant concern to people in the police and other security agencies for some time. Indeed, we know about the remarkable amount of police time that goes into monitoring highly dangerous people when they leave prison, because in the most recent attack that individual was being monitored. Such monitoring is not done just by a single individual; it is done by groups and teams of police officers, and others.
In the past two weeks, I asked the Lord Chancellor—I very much hope he will remain in his job; he is doing a cracking job and he is a superb Lord Chancellor—about separation units. He said that he hoped that although the Government were reviewing the situation, we had got the balance about right. I respectfully ask whether that is still the case, because the separation units we have are not the units that Ian Acheson recommended. He recommended separation units that would take prisoners out of the general prison population to ensure they were completely incapacitated from radicalising others over a significant and sustained period, around which individual responses to those individuals would be built. As other Conservative Members have said, the range of psychological conditions of extremists ranges from people who are probably just very mentally ill, to people who are very bad but in absolute, coherent control of their actions and are very good at radicalising and proselytising others. What Acheson describes as a sheep dip approach and generic psycho-social interventions from secular people—people trained in a secular approach to psychology—will not work for people whose universe is extremely different and built on a warped but theological basis.
Acheson said specifically that the Prison Service had unwillingly adopted some of his recommendations. The Lord Chancellor was good enough to say that we were adopting them, but apparently at a lower level there has been some resistance. Out of our three separation units, one was mothballed before it began, one lies or was lying empty and the third has barely a handful of residents. I would be very grateful if the Lord Chancellor or other Ministers talked to us about the day-to-day life of separation units. Perhaps MPs should visit them. I am visiting one of my prisons next week and I will be talking about the culture in prisons, both in my constituency and more broadly, because this is probably an issue on which we do not spend enough time. Clearly, there are significant problems. If people are coming out of prison and killing our fellow countrymen, we must prioritise this situation and we probably have not been doing so.
Acheson warned of a fear of litigation driving some decision making. We all have to be mindful of the law, but a fear of the human rights lobby should not be a reason for forcing or allowing people out who then go on to kill and maim their fellow countrymen.
The final point, which I think is valid, relates to the safeguarding of vulnerable prisoners—the vulnerable prisoners being the terrorist prisoners. I sort of get that at a certain level. In the hostage and crisis negotiators course, the police teach that the person trying to kill other people or take hostages is in a state of crisis and in a vulnerable state. Morality aside, that is clearly true. However, in practical and moral terms, treating the  person who is sticking a knife to somebody’s throat or walking on to the tube with a bomb as someone in need of safeguarding is, frankly, not as important as treating the people that that person is going to kill. They are the ones in need of safeguarding from that person. When we talk about safeguarding extremist prisoners, I am wary of using that language—I understand why it is being done—because I think it goes down a morally and ethically dangerous route. We are not making a moral distinction between innocence, which is what the term safeguarding should be used for, and people who want to do considerable harm to other people. Indeed, they see it as a perverted and twisted religious duty, as part of a holy jihad, to slaughter other people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, that can be a part of the mindset. It is on the spectrum of that mindset.
I know that other Members wish to speak, so I will wrap up on this point. I would very much like to be reassured on some of the questions and issues I have raised, because they are concerns felt by the people who are directly responsible for trying to protect the British public, as well as by Members of this House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. We have had plenty of time for this debate but there have been some very long speeches. We need to leave time for proper wind-up speeches from Front Benchers—many people have asked questions of the Minister that ought to be answered in here, so there should be time for him—so I will have to ask Members to make very short speeches of three minutes.

Jonathan Gullis: We in this place exercise our duty to protect the people we represent, amend the law where appropriate and ensure the highest standard of living and safety for everyone in this country. I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, which will implement more stringent, preventive measures, ending the automatic half-way release. Increasing the threshold so that two thirds of a sentence is served, as a minimum, provides more justice for victims and helps to protect wider society. I also hugely welcome the fact that the Lord Chancellor outlined the role that the Parole Board will further play in such decisions.
A big part of tackling radicalisation and decreasing the frequency and severity of crimes of this nature must be community-led. We need to empower people to report suspicious activity, however great or small the suspicions may seem, and for those reports to be received with the utmost seriousness and investigated thoroughly. The attack on Westminster bridge, in particular, hit close to home.
The terrorist who stole two bright lives on London Bridge in November was raised in my constituency. I will not name him and hope that his name is forgotten alongside his hatred. This individual deserves no recognition. I have spoken to faith leaders in my community and they have unequivocally condemned this individual’s actions. As a former religious education teacher, I know that such viciousness and violence is born through extremism, not through religion. Islam is a peaceful religion and the actions of this man in no way reflect on the many millions of loving, law-abiding citizens who also worship Islam.
We cannot and must not be lenient with those who attack the core values of this nation and all that it stands for. One of the victims of the attack in November last year was Saskia Jones. She was from Stratford-upon-Avon, my childhood home. I did not have the pleasure of knowing her but we were raised in the same community. The impact of her death and the grief felt by such a small, close-knit community is virtually unimaginable. My deepest condolences go to Jack and Saskia’s loved ones and those who were harmed in Streatham.
The best way to honour the memories of all those who have lost their lives as a result of extremist violence is two-pronged: first, we must implement protections on the ground through measures such as this Bill; and, secondly, we must focus on institutional protections to ensure that the time that offenders of this nature spend in prison is used to rehabilitate and reform in a meaningful way, so that prison sentences stop serving solely as a delay of the inevitable.

James Daly: I support the Bill because from my perspective it is a matter of complete common sense. When I was a criminal lawyer and I stood up and mitigated on behalf of defendants, they would get credit for the guilty plea, for showing remorse and for various other factors. It is complete anathema that if somebody gets a 16-year sentence, they serve eight. I have been able to see no evidence to show that having a prolonged period under the supervision of the Probation Service makes any substantive difference to rehabilitation. My constituents would expect somebody who receives a lengthy custodial sentence to serve that time, or as close as possible to that time. If any Member can give me an argument against that, I would be very interested to hear it.
The Bill is sensible, practical, reasonable and proportionate and it must come into law now. We here, if we have no other duty, must protect members of the public. This must come into law so that no further terrorists are released. How can we as a House possibly continue with the position whereby terrorists are released automatically 50% of the way through their sentences? It is preposterous. Anybody watching this debate would see how preposterous it is, so I warmly welcome the Bill.
I will make two other, brief points. A lot of Members say, with the best of intentions, let us support deradicalisation work. I have not heard one practical suggestion as to how that is going to work. We use words all the time to describe what we want to happen, but putting it into practice on the ground is totally different.

Alicia Kearns: Does my hon. Friend believe that terrorists can never truly be deradicalised? Having worked in counter-terrorism, I believe that the attributes that make someone vulnerable to extremism and radicalisation never go away; those attributes always remain and that person is always vulnerable, in some way, to some form of extremism or radicalisation, or to membership of groups that would seek to benefit from those attributes.

James Daly: I do not know if I would go that far, but I would say that the present programmes being used by the criminal justice system to tackle radicalisation simply do not work. I ask the Minister to look at other options if we are to pursue this.
I have one final point that I feel I have a duty to make, as a constituent and dear friend of mine, Rachel Wheeler, is a probation officer. I have known her and many of her colleagues for many years. The Probation Service provides a tireless service to the public, but it is not working as it should do, as I think everyone in the House understands. There are issues with staffing shortages and various other matters. We need a Probation Service that is fit for purpose. I could just say: let us put more money into it. Money is one thing; let us get services that work and deliver on the ground, and then we may have rehabilitation successes. As I said yesterday, the success of rehabilitative programmes and sentences in our criminal justice system is negligible. Whatever we have been doing does not work.

Ben Everitt: Streatham is a place that is very close to my heart. I lived there for many years and had the privilege of being the chairman of Streatham Conservatives and working closely with community groups and the police. I pay tribute to the professionalism of the police and the community groups. We know that the people of Streatham will be coming together at this dark hour to support each other. The incident on Streatham high road was especially tragic because it came so soon after a similar incident at London Bridge.
That brings us to why we are here. We have been put here by our electors with an understanding, which is both explicit and implicit, that we will keep them safe. We have a duty to keep our constituents safe—I have a duty to keep the people of Milton Keynes North safe—and we have the power to act on this matter. It is our duty as public servants and human beings to act. Let us be quite clear: those who have been proven to have committed or to have conspired to commit acts of terrorism are enemies of the Crown. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) put it, they are traitors, and people expect the full application of the law, of justice and of sentences.

Dehenna Davison: We have heard some incredible speeches from right across the House today, and I am pleased by the cross-party consensus that this is the right thing to do for the security of our country.
Her Majesty, back in 2001, spoke words that still resonate today:
“nothing that can be said can begin to take away the anguish and the pain of these moments. Grief is the price we pay for love”.
Our nation has grieved on multiple occasions, not least following the horrific attack in Manchester, which was referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), in which innocent children lost their lives through terrorism, and more recently—and more relevant to today’s debate—we grieve as a nation following the London Bridge and Streatham terror attacks. Both the offenders had been convicted of terror offences and both had been released early.
In this place, we have a duty to the innocent victims of terrorism. We have a duty to ensure that justice is done through the courts. That is why I welcome the upcoming counter-terrorism Bill, which will help to ensure that sentences really do reflect the severity of crimes, with a minimum sentence of 14 years—although  I hope that we will go further still in the case of those who have, to all in intents and purposes, declared themselves enemies of our very way of life. These are not petty criminals; these are people committing some of the most evil, atrocious offences, and it is right that they should receive the very harshest of sentences.
We also have a duty to ensure that the public are protected, and that means ensuring that those sentenced for terror offences are not automatically released early from prison. It is not right that convicted terrorists should be allowed to roam our streets freely before the end of their sentences. This emergency legislation seeks to address that by ending automatic early release, and I support it wholeheartedly.
Some Members have expressed concerns about the swift timetable, but, as the Lord Chancellor rightly pointed out, there are about 50 terror convicts who, under the current rules, would be due for automatic release before the end of this month. That is unacceptable, which is why it is right for us to support the Government’s changes and use our power to keep our streets and people safe, and why we must act now.
Under the Bill, terrorist offenders will only be eligible for early release if they pass a thorough risk assessment by the Parole Board. If they are considered still to pose any threat to public safety, they will rightfully be forced to serve the remainder of their time in prison. The Parole Board makes its decisions on the basis of a variety of factors, including behaviour displayed in prison. I am pleased to see the Government increasing counter-terrorism resources in prisons, ensuring that frontline staff are trained in identifying the behaviour of those who still pose a threat to society and ensuring that those who do still pose dangers to the public are not able to leave prison early.
However, our duty does not end at the point of release: we must ensure that sufficient monitoring takes place after release. I am pleased that we are introducing measures to strengthen supervision on licence for terrorist offenders, which will be bolstered by a doubling of the number of specialist counter-terrorism probation officers. On release, terrorists could be subjected to measures such as notification requirements, restrictions on travel and communications, and imposed curfews. All that will help to prevent further offences.
In this place, public safety is our No. 1 duty, but we also have a duty to do all we can to defend the memories of the victims, and ensure that terror never wins. That is why we must pass the Bill today.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall wind up the debate, having also opened it.
This has been a wide-ranging debate on the most serious of issues. We have a duty, across the House, to reduce the risk of incidents such as the one in Streatham happening again in the future. We can never eliminate that risk, but we must certainly put in place all reasonable and proportionate measures to reduce it. We must never sacrifice our values—the very values that this Parliament seeks to protect—in tackling these issues. The European convention on human rights and our own country’s common law, which has evolved over centuries, form the framework in which we must act.
I am grateful to Members in all parts of the House for their contributions to the debate, including the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who chairs the Justice Committee, and the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), who, as a former Minister north of the border, brought his own expertise to the debate. I also commend the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) for his maiden speech. He paid tribute, appropriately, to his predecessor, Laura Smith—who was certainly a great champion for the constituency during her time here—and mentioned the experience on which she drew as a primary school teacher. I think that, as a true Welsh valleys man, given the choice between the worm-charming championship and watching Crew and Nantwich rugby club, I would go for the rugby club every time, but I do wish the worm-charmers well in their competition. I also thought that the hon. Gentleman spoke very movingly about the struggle that many people have with identity, and I look forward to hearing more contributions from him during the time that he will have in the House in the current Parliament.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who spoke with her usual authority, including on the oversight of deradicalisation programmes, which will be vital in the years ahead. I also thank the hon. Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) spoke powerfully about the need for training and expertise for those who are going into prisons and providing the deradicalisation programmes. I also pay tribute to his extraordinary work in this area. I was grateful, too, for the contributions from the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes), for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), for Bury North (James Daly), for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) and for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison). We have had a good-natured and constructive debate in the Chamber this afternoon.
As I said in my opening remarks, we really need a relentless focus on the treatment of extremism in our jails. I am sure that, in a few minutes’ time, this particular piece of legislation will have its Second Reading in this House, but we also need to get the wider issues around this right. We need sufficient numbers of prison officers who are properly paid and supported to work in a constructive environment. We need a prison estate that is fit for purpose. We also have to tackle the problem of increased violence against our prison staff. We cannot continue to tolerate the current level of attacks on them. Many Members have spoken about the awful atrocities at Fishmongers’ Hall and in Streatham, but if there is any doubt about the issue of prison staff, let us not forget that on 9 January this year there was an attack on prison staff at HMP Whitemoor by two inmates with bladed articles. That is a reminder of the extent to which we ask our prison staff to take risks on a daily basis.
We need the very best regime to tackle extremism in our prisons. The best expertise, appropriate resources and trained staff are all required. We need a programme to prevent people from falling into a life of terror and hatred in the first place. It must be as effective as it can  be, and the Government need, in speedy fashion, to get the independent review of the Prevent programme under way with a reviewer in place. We need stable leadership and a Justice Secretary who remains in place long enough to make a lasting mark on the Department. I hope this Prime Minister will not be chopping and changing his Justice Secretary at every opportunity, so that we can put in place the strategy and long-term planning that are absolutely required in the Department at the moment.
Keeping the public safe is the central duty of Government. We need consistent evidence-based policy making, and even in a fast changing situation we should never lose sight of the evidence before us. What counts in this sphere has to be what works. I hope that this emergency legislation will now reach the statute book in a timely fashion to avert the immediate crisis, but it should mark a beginning, not an end. This should be the beginning of a wider debate on how we tackle extremism in our prisons and of a real commitment of resources from the Government to secure the very best expertise available in counter-extremism. That is what we must see in the months ahead. The public deserve no less.

Chris Philp: It has been a great privilege to listen to so many extremely fine speeches this afternoon, but I would particularly like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the newly elected Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) for his excellent maiden speech. There was a great deal in it to think about. He touched on issues of identity, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) has just said, but I was especially interested to hear about the worm-charming competition. I am looking forward to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich demonstrating his worm-charming skills, whatever form they may take, in the Tea Room later.
However, we are clearly here to consider an extremely serious matter touching on national security and public safety, prompted by two terrible recent cases: the murders committed at Fishmongers’ Hall by Usman Khan on 30 November last year and the attack by Sudesh Amman in Streatham on 2 February—a little over a week ago. It has become clear to the Government that the automatic release of some terrorist offenders after serving only half their sentence poses an unacceptable risk to the public, and that is why we are acting with urgency with this emergency legislation to end that happening.
The circumstances are, of course, exceptional. Many Members, including the Chairman of the Justice Committee and the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), a former Justice Secretary in Scotland, have said that this is not something that any Government would undertake lightly, but where we believe we have to act quickly and decisively to protect the public, we will do so.

Lisa Cameron: The Minister is making an excellent speech on this important issue. I refer the House to the fact that I am a risk assessor with the Risk Management Authority in Scotland. Has he considered, or might he consider, the order for lifelong restriction? It is in place in Scotland for offenders who continue to exhibit a significant risk throughout their lifetime, and offenders can be recalled at any point.

Chris Philp: I thank the hon. Lady for raising such a thoughtful point. That certainly is something we would be prepared to study and consider, because we are always keen to learn from other jurisdictions. We will be bringing forward wider measures as part of a counter-terrorism Bill in the next few months. One provision we have in mind is greatly extending licence periods following release, which is in the spirit of what she suggested, so I thank her for her constructive proposal.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: I have heard Members throughout the debate talking about ending automatic release as if it was a new thing, but the Minister will be aware that the measure already exists in section 9 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. Is he confused, like me, as to why the change was not made retrospective then, because that legislation came in direct response to the terror attacks that happened throughout 2017? The Government could have made the change then, which Labour Members would have supported, as we did when they set up the Prevent review.

Chris Philp: Of course, the Government and Parliament think carefully about retrospection and rightly take a circumspect view. Several changes to sentencing have been made over the past five or 10 years, including the introduction of extended determinate sentences, whereby release at two thirds of the way through a sentence is a matter for the Parole Board following an assessment of dangerousness by the sentencing judge. Sentences for offenders of particular concern were extended a short time ago to include terrorist offenders who do not have an EDS or life sentence, and SOPCs include a Parole Board assessment at the halfway point. A great deal has been done in the past few years in this area, but the two recent cases, including, of course, the one in Streatham just a week and a half ago, underline the need to go even further than before, which is why this Bill is before the House today.
The number of offenders affected is small. As the Lord Chancellor said in his excellent introduction, only 50 offenders are involved, because all the rest are covered by other sentencing types. Even a small number of offenders, however, can cause a high level of harm, as we have seen, which is why it is important that we go further with today’s Bill. The next such offender is due for release by the end of the month, and that is why we are acting so quickly to ensure that legislation is in place prior to that release.
I thank Members from across the House, including the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), and the SNP spokesman, for the constructive and supportive tone of their speeches. This is a good example of Parliament working in a cross-party way in the national interest, and I am grateful for the approach they have taken today.
Some of the questions raised today touch on wider issues in this area, one of which is the question of resources, raised by the hon. Member for Torfaen in his opening speech. I confirm to the House once again that another £90 million will be spent on counter-terrorism policing next year, bringing the budget to £900 million. That very significant increase in resources was announced just a short time ago.
We clearly need to do more on the prison estate. Between 2017-18 and 2019-20, the prisons budget has increased from £2.55 billion to £2.9 billion, a 15% increase,  and over the last three years there has been a welcome increase in the number of prison officers serving in our prison estate from 18,003 to 22,536.
Of course, we are also investing in the quality of the prison estate. The next financial year, which starts shortly, will see an extra £156 million invested in the prison estate’s physical condition, in addition to a £2.5 billion programme to build 10,000 additional prison places over and above the 3,500 currently under construction at Glen Parva, Wellingborough and Stocken.

Bob Neill: The Minister is making a good speech, and I recognise the various measures the Government are taking to invest in the prison estate and in staffing. On the point made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), does the Minister also recognise the importance of a comprehensive policy to ensure the retention of experienced prison staff, as well as the recruitment of others, because they have particular skills and knowledge that are valuable in this field?

Chris Philp: The Chair of the Justice Committee makes a good point. It is important to retain experience in the prison officer establishment. Prison staff have long expertise and long experience, and the Prisons Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), is acutely aware of the importance of retention.
Many hon. and right hon. Members, including the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), have drawn attention to the importance of a comprehensive deradicalisation programme in prisons—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) also made that point in his excellent speech. We are acutely conscious of the importance of that and of the need to do more. We have the theological and ideological intervention programme, the healthy identities programme and the deradicalisation programme in place, and I am sure there is more that needs to be done in those areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) touched on that in his speech, and I know the Prisons Minister would like shortly to take up his offer of a meeting to discuss exactly these issues.
Of course, it is equally important to make sure these offenders are properly monitored after release, whether on licence or otherwise. The TPIM regime was strengthened in 2015, and we always have multi-agency public protection arrangements where necessary. As we saw, those arrangements were effective in the case of Sudesh Amman. After he began his behaviour, it was a matter of seconds before the police were able to intervene, which is an example of MAPPA working well in practice.
In the few minutes remaining to me, I will address the question of retrospection, touched on by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). It is our very firm belief, based on legal advice, that these measures do not contravene article 7. They do not constitute a retrospective change of the penalty, because the penalty is the total sentence. The penalty is the sentence handed down by the judge at the point of sentencing and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) elaborated,  a wide body of case law says that changing the early release point does not change the penalty. In fact, early release ameliorates the penalty—it reduces the penalty—so changing the early release point does not add to it. The Uttley case makes that clear, as do other cases that have come before the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights.
I do not think the del Río Prada case, in which the Kingdom of Spain was a respondent, is directly germane because it concerns the calculation of concurrent sentences and a change in how concurrent sentences are handled, which is obviously not the matter before the House today. The Government are clear that the Bill does not contravene article 7 and does not constitute a retrospective change to the penalty; it simply constitutes a change to how the sentence is administered.
Let me touch briefly on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), which I suspect we may debate more fully in Committee shortly. We do not believe that a notwithstanding clause is necessary, because we do not believe article 7 is contravened by this legislation—we can debate this more. We are also not wholly convinced that a notwithstanding clause would derogate our treaty obligations under the ECHR.

Bill Cash: rose—

Chris Philp: I am conscious of time. I would be happy to give way in Committee to debate this at greater length. I very much look forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s further views on this and I would be happy to take an intervention in Committee, but I must wrap up in a minute or so.
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) asked about the MAPPA review and the Prevent review. The MAPPA review is under way and is being led by Jonathan Hall QC. The Prevent review has a statutory deadline of August 2020, which we intend to abide by. We will make further announcements about its progress—this will include appointing a new reviewer—as soon as possible.

Yvette Cooper: Is it actually doing any work?

Chris Philp: It is a Home Office matter, but I do not think work has stopped simply because of the issue with the reviewer.
In conclusion—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman has one and a half minutes, so it is alright.

Chris Philp: Madam Deputy Speaker, you are extremely kind. I thought I had about 10 seconds left.
I would like to use up my remaining one minute and 10 seconds, as it is now, by saying that although these are emergency measures designed to address a specific problem, we will of course be coming back with a much wider and more considered set of proposals in our counter-terrorism Bill in the next few months and in the sentencing White Paper. Many Members have spoken of the need to think widely and thoughtfully about these issues, and we will of course be doing so. Members will be pleased to hear that in the counter-terrorism Bill we will be seeking to impose a 14-year minimum sentence,  with no prospect of early release, for the most serious terrorist offenders. We will also be thoughtful and considered about issues of deradicalisation. Of course, more resources are going into the system: 20,000 extra police officers; £85 million extra for the Crown Prosecution Service; and more Crown court sitting days in the coming year. This is an important emergency measure designed for public protection, and I am pleased to see that it commands support across the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Considered in Committee (Order, this day)
[Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair]

Clause 1 - Eligibility for release on licence of terrorist prisoners: England and Wales

Bill Cash: I beg to move amendment 3, page 1, line 8, after “force”, insert
“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”
The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to consider:
Amendment 4, in page 1, line 12, after “force”, insert
“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”
The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.
Amendment 1, page 2, line 34, leave out “two-thirds” and insert “nine-tenths”.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 37, leave out “two-thirds” and insert “nine-tenths”.
Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
Amendment 5, in clause 3, page 4, line 2, after “force”, insert
“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”.
The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.
Amendment 6, page 4, line 6, after “force”, insert
“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”.
The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.
Clause 3 and 4 to 10 stand part.
That schedules 1 and 2 be the First and Second schedules to the Bill.
New clause 1—Review of prison deradicalisation programme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to review the operation of the provisions of the prison deradicalisation programme.
(2) The person appointed under subsection (1) may enter any prison premises in order to scrutinise the operation of the prison deradicalisation programme.
(3) The person appointed under subsection (1) must make a report to the Secretary of State on the operation of the provisions of the prison deradicalisation programme before the end of the period of 6 months after the date on which this Act is passed.
(4) The person appointed must make further reports at intervals of not more than three months to the Secretary of State on the operation of the provisions of the prison deradicalisation programme.
(5) The person appointed under subsection (1) may include in any review or report under this section consideration of the adequacy of resources made available to the prison deradicalisation programme, including resources made available for the supervision of probation and rehabilitation work.
(6) On receiving a report under this section, the Secretary of State must make arrangements to lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament as soon as the Secretary of State is satisfied that doing so will not prejudice any criminal proceedings.
(7) The Secretary of State may, out of money provided by Parliament, pay a person appointed under subsection (1), such expenses and allowances as the Secretary of State determines.”
This new clause would require the appointment of an independent reviewer of the prison deradicalisation programme.
New clause 3—Review—
(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for an independent review of the impact of sections 1 to 9 to be carried out in relation to the initial one-year period.
(2) The Secretary of State must, after consultation with the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, appoint a person with professional experience relating to the imprisonment for offences of terrorism to conduct the review.
(3) The review must be completed as soon as practicable after the end of the initial one-year period.
(4) As soon as practicable after a person has carried out the review in relation to a particular period, the person must—
(a) produce a report of the outcome of the review, and
(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the report sent under subsection (4)(b) within one month of receiving the report.
(6) The Secretary of State may—
(a) make such payments as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of the review, and
(b) make such other arrangements as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of the review (including arrangements for the provision of staff, other resources and facilities).
(7) In this section, “initial one-year period” means the period of one year beginning with the day when this Act comes into force.”

Bill Cash: I have already canvassed some parts of what I am about to say, but there is more to say, for a very sound reason. Parliament is full of opinions and Ministers are full of opinions. Two Ministers are sitting on the Front Bench at the moment, no doubt debating the issue before the Committee, but their opinions are not the law, and nor are those of leading counsel, whether senior Treasury counsel or those involved in academic discussion. I say that really seriously. I have been practising the law since 1967 and I know a little about how the law is interpreted. We saw the Gina Miller case the other day. How many times were we told that there was absolutely no question but that the Government were right in their interpretation? I served as the shadow Attorney General and saw the whole of the Iraq and Peter Goldsmith exercise. We were told over and again in the House this, that and the other about interpretation—“This is what will happen. This is the way it will go.” That is no way to make decisions on matters of this kind of critical importance.
There are occasions on which the question of interpretation may merely be about a modification of policy; this is actually about saving human life. I repeat that: saving human life. Where it is possible for the House to ensure that human life cannot be unreasonably and wilfully disposed of by people who are intent on  murdering for no reason at all, we need to take seriously the question whether or not we can exclude the courts —because this is Parliament, not the judiciary—from making wrong decisions when matters come before them.
I heard with interest the Chairman of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and the various cases he mentioned, and I have just heard the Minister refer to the Uttley case. There is also the Hogben case, which was of course in 1985, before the Human Rights Act 1998. Reference was also made to the del Río Prada case. As a matter of fact, the legislation does not depend on an interpretation of those individual cases by way of precedent, and that is not what we should be worried about; we should be thinking about the purpose and scope of the Bill and its objective, which is to do everything that we can to ensure that human life and public safety come first. I do not want this to become an argument about the interpretation of law, which is why I tabled amendment 3 to clause 1.

Greg Knight: On the subject of opinions, does my hon. Friend intend to test the opinion of the Committee, or merely the opinion of the Minister?

Bill Cash: That is an extremely good question on which I have already given an indication. Being a realist, I know perfectly well that this is not a Bill to which an amendment is going to be passed—certainly not today—but I did say that the House of Lords, which is where the Bill is going, is full of lawyers, some of whom I will disagree with and have disagreed with for as many years as I have been in the House, but there are others who will take a different view.
I am interested to hear the views of the House of Lords on the question of my proposal to amend clause 1. The wording of clause 1 currently refers to an offence “within subsection (2)” and a sentence imposed
“whether before or after this section comes into force”,
at which point I propose to insert the words
“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”.
The effect of that would be to put a complete bar on the use of the Human Rights Act, by interpretation of the courts, in any attempt, whether it is regarded as misguided or is a matter of culture—there is currently a load of culture in the courts relating to human rights questions that have built up over the whole of my lifetime in the law.
I am deeply concerned that we could allow legislation to go through that could be interpreted in a way that would result in human life being lost and public safety being infringed. That is my concern. [Interruption.] I see the Minister looking at me either apprehensively or with anticipation; I am not sure which it is and I do not really care. What I am saying is that I want certainty. I know that if the words “notwithstanding the Human Rights Act” are brought into the Bill, the effect will be to exclude completely, for reasons that I am about to give, any attempt by the courts to modify the effect that the Bill otherwise would have.
I have other concerns about the Bill that I have already made clear. I do not think that offenders should be considered for release after half or two thirds of their sentence. I have a lot of sympathy for what my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond  Swayne) proposes in amendment 1; he says it should be nine tenths. I do not know whether he will address that point later.
The bottom line is that we should not allow this situation if we can avoid it—and we can avoid it, because we are the Houses of Parliament, and as a result of Brexit, we have just regained an awful lot of our sovereignty. This is more a matter of the European convention on human rights than of the charter of fundamental rights—or, for that matter, of Brexit—but the amendment is an indication of the House’s determination to use our sovereignty to make law that will guarantee that we do not face people losing their life, or public safety being undermined.
If we do not include in the Bill the words that I propose in my amendment 3, I believe—as I said before with respect to the Lee Rigby case—that it is not a matter of if such a thing happens again; it is a matter of when. I concede that this is emergency legislation; that is why I support it, but it requires a full, thorough review, perhaps by the Justice Committee, to ensure that we deal with the issue properly and fully.
I applaud the Government for bringing in this Bill on an emergency basis, but I criticise the fact that the Bill does not go far enough. The Minister is, if I might say so, not a lawyer; he can only have received his information from others who are. He is taking a bit of a punt in saying that the words
“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”
are not needed. He does not know that. I say that with not only respect, but knowledge and certainty. It is very difficult even for lawyers to be sure what the impact would be of allowing the Bill through without excluding the Human Rights Act 1998 from it.

Chris Philp: I thank the hon. Member for giving way, despite my non-lawyer background. I am of course interested in what he says, and have been listening extremely carefully, as he has seen. How does he think his amendment would operate? In particular, does he think it would in any way disapply our ECHR treaty obligations? Even if we passed his notwithstanding amendment, could applicants not still go directly to the European Court in Strasbourg? We cannot disapply that route through this amendment.

Bill Cash: I notice that the Minister is reading very carefully from the notes with which he has been provided, and I agree with the sentiment behind them, but I am putting the case in a different way. We are talking about serious questions of human life, and every step should be taken to preserve it. I was originally minded to use the amendment to exclude the European convention on human rights, too. I describe amendment 3 as a probing amendment, but I want proper consideration of it, not just someone saying, “I don’t think the wording would achieve the total effect that the hon. Gentleman would wish it to.”
The risk to human life is serious; we have to take every step to ensure no repetition of the instances of murder and terrorism that we have witnessed, and which, in recent times, from Lee Rigby onwards, have become more and more prevalent. We know that people are prepared to take such steps; it may be that some of them are mentally disturbed. Perhaps people do not  think that these things will happen again, but as I said in debate on another counter-terrorism Bill four or five years ago, the question is not whether we have another Lee Rigby, but when. We have had one after another, at regular intervals. They are becoming more and more imminent, and more and more serious. I doubt whether this Bill, however worthy its objectives, will deal with the problem in the manner in which I am setting out and which is necessary.
There is no doubt that Parliament has the power to legislate retrospectively. I want to make that entirely clear. If the words are clear and express, whatever judges may wish to interpret is displaced by the wording that Parliament actually utters. My authority for this—there are plenty of authorities, but I will give the Committee this one—are the words of Willes J in Phillips v. Eyre. Those words boil down to this: the courts will only ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by
“express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature”.
That is supported by page 56 of Bradley and Ewing’s “Constitutional and Administrative Law”, which is the greatest constitutional authority that we have in this country and is into its 15th edition. Bradley and Ewing are quite clear that if the words are express in particular, and/or by necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature, there is no argument. The courts, quite rightly, will interpret that law in the light of those express words. This is why I propose the insertion of the words
“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”.
We could add “or the European convention on human rights”, for that matter—to answer the Minister’s point directly. I do not mind. I am not doing this as an exercise in academic analysis; I am doing it because I do not want people to be killed and I do not want people to be released in circumstances where they might kill people. There is too much at stake.
For practical purposes, I believe that we need to have legislative clarity and the avoidance of doubt in relation to the power of Parliament to legislate retrospectively. I am not interested in the possible interpretation of leading counsel, academics, bloggers, senior Treasury counsel or, for that matter—with the greatest respect, and I really mean that—either the Chair of the Justice Committee or the Lord Chancellor himself. In this House, we make decisions about the legislation that we are going to pass. On the basis of what Willes J said in Phillips v. Eyre—and other cases—it is crystal clear that by using words that are explicit and express, we can have the effect of ensuring that human life is saved, and that is the main intention behind my amendment.
It is not for me to go into all the criticisms of the Human Rights Act 1998 that I have had over the years, but I can assure the House that an awful lot of distinguished lawyers, including the Foreign Secretary, have had a lot to say about this matter over the years, including Martin Howe QC. There is a huge body of legal opinion on both sides of the debate, and there are those who are inclined to take the view that the Human Rights Act has a lot of merit in it—and the charter of fundamental rights, for that matter, which we have now excluded by virtue of the withdrawal agreement Bill, which became the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 only about 10 days ago.

Adam Afriyie: I am another layperson —a non-lawyer. Can my hon. Friend see any downside to including the set of words that he is suggesting in his amendment? Would they limit something that might otherwise not be limited? I hear very clearly his arguments about its possibly being superfluous and the legislation being subject to interpretation, but is there any downside other than it being an additional safeguard that might not have been required?

Bill Cash: Indeed. As usual, my hon. Friend is very perceptive. This is really the main purpose of my words on the subject, because there is no downside at all in this context. I can think of circumstances where it might be arguable that there could be, because somehow or other one might be infringing some genuine human right. However, given that we are dealing with this issue for the sole purpose of preventing people from being murdered in the circumstances and in the manner of these heinous acts and for the purposes for which people indulge in them, there can be no downside in making this absolutely crystal clear, subject to comments that may be made by other lawyers as a result of what I am saying now and, for that matter, what is said in the House of Lords.
I am not pretending that I have all the answers to every question in matters of this kind, but I do think it is our duty, in the context of what we are seeking to prevent, to ensure that we are as crystal clear as we can be in our direction to the courts that they should not and must not allow human rights considerations to allow murder to take place. That is the problem and that is why I am so emphatic about it. I have noted from the Minister’s remarks and from other conversations I have had with senior Ministers that they are perhaps more interested in questions of interpretation than I am. I do not want any interpretation in this context.
The sole purpose of this Bill is to deal with people who are going to commit murder. Let us be under no misapprehension: this Bill has not been brought forward to deal with some questions relating to the whole generality of human rights law; it is specifically emergency legislation to deal specifically with preventing people who, for a variety of reasons or without reasons, intend to perpetrate murder from doing so. Human life is at risk. That is why this is such a good move on the part of the Government. There is nothing negative in my approach; it is entirely belt and braces. If the opportunity is to be given to Parliament to make sure that we have both the belt and the braces, then for heaven’s sake let us take it and not leave it to the vagaries and the uncertainties of judicial interpretation.
I have already referred to the Hogben case. I am not going to go through the analysis, because this is not something that depends on compiling a judgment about the interpretation of law based on precedents. I do not think that any case we put forward, coming back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) said, could generate an upside or a downside. I just want clarity; that is the whole point. The words that I have used adopt the notwithstanding formula in section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, relating to the sovereignty of Parliament. I argued this in No. 10, and the Prime Minister, to his enormous credit, completely backed me. I said, “You have to include the words ‘notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972’.” By doing this in a certain  manner, one ensures that one achieves one’s objective, without the uncertainty that can arise in the circumstances that I have described.
We need to bear in mind that the del Rio Prada case was a decision by the European Court of Human Rights. The Minister referred to the other cases. In the case of Uttley, there was an appeal on which the House of Lords concluded that article 7 would be infringed only if a sentence was imposed on a defendant that constituted a heavier penalty than that which would have been imposed at the time the offence was committed. The ECHR then declared that his application was inadmissible. The del Rio Prada case was to do with Spanish policy, but there is no doubt that part of the argument put forward by the Government today has depended on administration, rather than the object of the Bill. That is another area that needs to be carefully considered, because the question of administration should not be the basis on which we make these decisions.
There we are—I have made my case. The Government could review the situation when the Bill goes to the House of Lords, and I will be interested to see how people develop this argument from now on.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I rise to speak to new clause 1, in my name and that of my hon. and right hon. Friends, but before I do I want to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who has had to deal with the awful incident that happened on the high street in Streatham shortly after coming into the House. On her intervention on the Minister on Second Reading, the issue of various sentencing decisions over the last 10 years was touched on in a new clause that was not selected, but more broadly I commend the idea of strategically reviewing the sentencing regime, and I hope that the Ministry of Justice will consider that.
I made it clear to the Minister previously that it is not my intention to divide the Committee on new clause 1, but scrutiny of the deradicalisation programme and giving Parliament confidence that the programme is being monitored is very important, and I hope he will address that when he responds.
The new clause specifically requires the appointment of an independent reviewer of the prison deradicalisation programme. On Second Reading, the Minister mentioned some figures with regard to resources, including £90 million on counter-terror policing and an uplift in the prison budget from £2.55 billion to £2.9 billion, but that does not tell us specifically how much is being spent on the deradicalisation programme. That is the sort of information that an independent reviewer would be able to discover and then put in a format that the House could consider.
We have already discussed Mr Ian Acheson’s review of Islamist extremism in prisons, probation and youth justice. One of his recommendations was to have an independent adviser on counter-terrorism in prisons who is accountable to the Secretary of State. My new clause goes slightly further than that recommendation. It would require the Secretary of State for Justice to appoint a person to review the operation of the prison deradicalisation programme, with the power to enter prison premises both to gather evidence and provide scrutiny. There would be a statutory requirement for a report to be laid before Parliament every three months on the programme. That could be regarded as too often,  but the general point stands—this House would be in a position to properly judge the effectiveness of rehabilitation work in our prisons.
Subsection (5) of the new clause would give the independent reviewer the power to look into the resources available to the programme, including for probation and rehabilitation work. That proposal of an independent reviewer would give the opportunity for proper scrutiny of this very important programme. The Minister will be aware of the healthy identity intervention and other such programmes that currently exist. Through new clause 1, we seek to build on that and give real confidence in the Government’s work in the rehabilitation and deradicalisation space. I am not absolutely clear of the extent to which those who have perpetrated these awful atrocities in recent months took part in deradicalisation programmes, but I hope that will be considered and that the Minister will learn the lessons from that. It is vital that we use the time in prison of whatever length—I had a debate about that earlier with the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne)—in a constructive way to protect the public.
The broader point is such an important one. I have throughout the debate indicated that, while of course there is support for the principles behind the Bill, including the principle of Parole Board involvement, there must in addition be a focus on resources and on strategy in relation to deradicalisation. The proposal I have put forward of an independent reviewer is one way of producing that, but I accept that there are others, and I look forward to hearing the remarks of the Minister.

Bill Cash: Before the shadow Minister sits down, may I ask him a question? I am engaged in a probing exercise—I am not going to push amendment 3 to a vote—and I would like to know what the Opposition think about excluding the Human Rights Act 1998 and what reason he would give for saying that it was unnecessary.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am delighted to have a chance to respond. I will do so in a moment, but the first thing I would say is that I remember the criticism of me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) in the last Parliament when we were seeking disclosure of legal advice—not from the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps from others. It strikes me that Members are now discussing case law across the Floor of the House and Ministers are referring to legal advice, which perhaps shows that there is a change.
I do not support the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. First, the point made by the Minister is correct, and even if we put this into the legislation, the right to go to Strasbourg would still exist. The second reason why I am uncomfortable with what the hon. Gentleman is saying—I am quite happy to give way to him again if I am wrong in my interpretation—is that he, as I understand it, wants the House to pass legislation and then somehow prevent courts from being able to adjudicate on it, which surely is not what is meant by having a sovereign Parliament that is accountable to judges.

Bill Cash: I can respond to that very simply by referring the hon. Gentleman to the speeches made on the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998.  I was in the House at the time, and it was made absolutely clear that this Act would not in itself impinge on the sovereignty of Parliament. That was made clear, and therefore as far as I am concerned—I understand where he is coming from, but I am afraid that his point is erroneous—it is implicit in the passing of the 1998 Act that we are able, if we wish to do so, to take the legislation that we pass in this House as the final word, and the courts are obliged to obey.
With respect to the European convention on human rights, I would simply make the point that I made just now, which is that I could have included such words—yet again, that is another part of my probing amendment—and they could have been “notwithstanding the charter of fundamental rights” as a matter of fact, but that would have been destroyed by the existence at that time of the European Communities Act 1972, which was binding on us by Act of Parliament.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: With the greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is not an erroneous point. I taught the Human Rights Act for the best part of 11 or 12 years, but I will resist the temptation to give his contribution a grade. Yes, the Human Rights Act contains the power to make a declaration of incompatibility, thus preserving the concept of parliamentary sovereignty —it is absolutely right that Parliament does not have a strike-down power as, for example, the US Supreme Court does—but I have two fundamental problems with his amendment. The first problem is the one I have set out: this House passing legislation that essentially tells the courts, “Well, you can move aside: this is absolutely what we say,” without any scrutiny.

Bill Cash: indicated assent.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I know the hon. Gentleman nods his head, but I am not comfortable with that position.
The second point is that I firmly believe we can tackle this issue of terrorism and remain signatories to the European convention on human rights. That is essentially the Government’s position here today, and I really do not think that we need to get into this debate because the Government have clearly stated that the Act—or the Bill, as it currently is—is compliant with article 7. If people wish to challenge that in the courts, that is a matter for them, but the Government must be confident in their legal position.
Under the Human Rights Act, each Bill that comes before the House contains a sentence on its front page to show that Ministers have considered whether it is compatible with that Act. If they had wished, the Government could have stated in the Bill that they did not think it compatible with the Human Rights Act, but they wanted us to proceed regardless. They did not do that, however, and they clearly state on the Bill their belief that it is compatible with the Act. We have heard a case law of history from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), and others, but that is the Government’s position, and for those reasons I cannot support the amendment. I understand that he will not push it to a vote, and the debate will continue in the other place, but this is not an amendment that would have found favour on the Labour Benches.
Let me return to new clause 1. I will not push the idea of an independent reviewer to the vote—I will not frustrate the passage of the Bill in that way. However, it  would assist the Committee if the Minister set out how Members will be able to scrutinise the programme of deradicalisation over the next few years, and how we can have the information before us—whether from the Ministry of Justice directly or in another way—to assess how it is working.
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), intervened on the Justice Secretary during his opening speech and said that she felt there had been a lack of success in the deradicalisation programmes. She is right, and we need to see some success in the years ahead. I will not push new clause 1 to the vote, but I hope the Minister will provide some assurances about how such scrutiny could take place.

Desmond Swayne: I do not intend to detain the Committee long, Dame Eleanor, and the Minister should consider this not so much a probing amendment as a prodding amendment—it is my intention to prod the Minister.
The purpose of my amendments is stunningly obvious. At lines 34 and 37, I wish to remove “two-thirds”, and insert the words “nine-tenths”. In reality, many sentences, even for acts of terrorism such as the possession of terrorist promotional material with intent, give rise to a surprisingly short sentence, such as four years. In such a case, the difference between half the sentence, as currently served, and two-thirds, is a mere six months. Admittedly, extending that to nine-tenths of the sentence does not address the nature of the problem—that is why this is a prodding amendment—but the fact is that sentences are too short.
There is a general problem of honesty in sentencing. When a judge hands down a sentence in court, all those in the know work out on the back of a fag packet what it means in terms of imprisonment, but the public, who are generally not in the know, do not understand that the sentence is not that at all. They would be scandalised if they knew.

Bill Cash: Does my right hon. Friend remember a recent case of two treasure hunters who I think got as much as 10 years because they had not declared a treasure trove? Compare that with somebody who is intent on murdering people on the streets of London, or anywhere else.

Desmond Swayne: That is the random caprice of the judiciary! Returning to the issue before us, on the specific point of sentencing for terrorist acts, we must be clear in our minds about what intention lies behind our whole sentencing policy. I believe that fundamentally it must be to secure the reformation of the offender before he is released. The problem is that existing strategies for reforming offenders, and de-programming them from their ideology, are somewhat untested. Those that are tested—such as the programme run in Saudi Arabia, which has been shown to be effective—take a relatively long time. I suggest, therefore, that that lends itself to an indeterminate sentence to detainment at Her Majesty’s pleasure until a licensing authority, the Parole Board, has decided that the offender is safe to be released. That is the purpose of my amendment: merely to contribute to that debate.

Daisy Cooper: I am not seeking to press new clause 3, but I am seeking reassurances from the Minister relating to the purpose behind it and a commitment to post-legislative scrutiny.
In my earlier remarks, I made the point that fast law can be bad law. In the absence of an opportunity for thorough prelegislative scrutiny, we absolutely must have post-legislative scrutiny. There are relevant examples of where this has happened: the Immigration Act 2014 was controversial, so it contained the same requirement as exists in new clause 3; and the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which was rushed in in response to a court ruling, included a sunset clause of 18 months. I am not asking for a sunset clause, but new clause 3 sets out clearly that we would like the opportunity for a statutory review after one year. The person conducting that review should be appointed after consultation with the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and they should have professional experience relating to imprisonment for offences of terrorism.
New clause 3 does not seek to outline the scope of such a statutory review, but I would like to give the Committee some examples of the kind of matters that could be covered by it. Such a statutory review could ask whether the extra time the terrorists spend in prison is being used to deradicalise them. Are they actually receiving an effective deradicalisation programme or, on the contrary, are they potentially becoming more dangerous? It could look at whether the Parole Board has the resources to cope with the extra demands put on it. It could look at whether terrorist prisoners are being failed by the Parole Board and whether they are being released at the end of their sentence without any supervision on licence. It could look at whether the Probation Service has the staff and resources it needs to ensure effective supervision during the shorter period that offenders spend on licence. It could also perhaps look at whether the change in the release point affects the sentencing decisions made by judges.
As I said earlier, there is a risk that because of the lack of opportunity for prelegislative scrutiny there is the possibility that this becomes a law of unintended consequences. I know there are proposals for legislation down the line, but we also know that legislation can get delayed. It would be absolutely right for the House to insist on post-legislative scrutiny by virtue of a one-year statutory review. Who knows, the review might even identify things that could be included in future legislation.

John Hayes: I speak in sympathy with all the amendments for the reasons I shall give. In respect of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), it is important that we anticipate the likely counters to this proposed legislation that will perhaps come from malign forces in the other place and outside it. There are people who will seek to frustrate the Government in their attempt to do the right thing.

Daisy Cooper: I note that the right hon. Gentleman says there are malign forces. I ask him to recognise that there are those of us who hold public and national security front and centre in our roles in the House and that some people may be looking not to frustrate but improve the Bill by ensuring it complies with human rights law.

John Hayes: We do not have time, and you would not permit us, Dame Eleanor, to have a broader debate about the character of rights and human rights law, but I welcome the opportunity to do so with the hon. Lady at a place and time of her choosing. I have profound doubts about that law and the root of it, which is, essentially, the acceptance of natural rights that I do not believe in. I believe in the lawful entitlements that we call rights, of course. How they should be dealt with legally is an entirely different matter and not one pertinent to these considerations, but I look forward happily to that broader debate. Given that there will be challenges to the Government, malign and otherwise, given what she said, it seems that there is a good case for a belt-and-braces approach, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone described it.

Bill Cash: In the context of what is developing into a very interesting speech, I refer to Edmund Burke’s famous attack on Thomas Paine in respect of what he really thought about human rights. It was a brilliantly expressed metaphor—that we would not be “trussed” like chickens, or something of that kind, by the human rights proposals of Thomas Paine.

John Hayes: Now I might really test your patience, Dame Eleanor, because my hon. Friend invites me to articulate a Burkean case against natural rights, which I will be happy to do, but perhaps on another occasion. Given that I offered the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) the opportunity to have a debate about this, that might be the very occasion. Perhaps my hon. Friend will agree to be my seconder in such a debate—what a humbling experience that would be for me and an elevating one for him. I hope we will do that on another occasion and we can indeed explore why so many people take for granted the existence of natural rights, as though they spring from the ether. As a Christian, of course I could not possibly take that view, but now is not the time to get into that discussion.
On the specifics of the amendment, my hon. Friend makes a belt-and-braces case, as I said, for a “notwithstanding” clause. The shadow Minister made the point that that was fundamentally disagreeable and made a constitutional argument against the “notwithstanding” clause per se. However, he also went on to say that he believed the Government were right, or were likely to be right, in asserting that they were clear that, in any case, this legislation did not contradict any existing rights legislation. We heard that today from the Secretary of State and again subsequently in the debate: the Government do not feel that the proposed legislation is likely to be successfully challenged, as my hon. Friend suggested it might. We have to assume that the Government have taken legal advice to make that claim.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I should make one thing clear: obviously, I have not seen the legal advice the Government are relying on, which I am sure they have sought, quite appropriately. I merely point out that that is the Government’s view and that is what the Secretary of State has put in the Bill. On that basis, article 7 was not engaged—I want to make that point clear to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).

John Hayes: I would not have wanted to suggest anything other than that. The hon. Gentleman was very clear that he had heard what the Government said about having taken that advice and their confidence that a legal challenge would not succeed on that basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone may be more sceptical than others about that, but it is important to point out that the Government have made it clear that further legislation on counter-terrorism will be forthcoming. That legislation might in itself, on a primary basis, revisit the issue of how counter-terrorism measures interface with and may be contradicted by existing legislation. That would be a very fundamental debate, because of course it will oblige the consideration of exactly the kinds of points that he made. On that basis, I am happy to go with the Minister. Notwithstanding my temptation to follow the example of my esteemed hon. Friend the Member for Stone, I am happy, like the shadow Minister, to err on the side of the Government and to say that if they have taken legal advice, with the further opportunity to revisit these matters in the primary legislation that we hear will be speeding its way to the House, I am prepared to concede the argument about rights.

Bill Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is going to try to persuade me not to.

Bill Cash: My right hon. Friend will accept that this is primary legislation and furthermore that I have already said I am looking forward to a proper discussion about this in the future, with a view to getting it right, because the object of the Bill is to prevent people from being killed on the streets of this country.

John Hayes: I am talking about the murderous intent of people I described earlier as wicked. I use that word advisedly: not all these people are mentally disturbed. Some may be, and we know from evidence that some are, but not all. Crime is not an illness to be treated; it is a malevolent choice, an act of wickedness, and wickedness is entirely different from mental illness. I know it is difficult for some to grasp that, but it is important to emphasise it.

Lisa Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. Of course, if an individual were mentally disordered, the pathway for their rehabilitation and punishment would be through a secure hospital, rather than prison, which would deal with that matter.

John Hayes: There are well-established ways of differentiating people in those terms, different ways of dealing with them in law, different ways of dealing with them once convicted, and different ways of dealing with them in the community. The psychologists and psychiatrists associated with the Probation and Prison Service are well-accustomed to that differentiation, but in the public debate we need to be bold and brave enough to say that there are some very wicked people who want to do wicked things, and it is our job not only to deal with those things by anticipating, deterring and punishing them, but to reinforce public faith in the rule of law by saying so. This is an opportunity to do so as the Bill gives that life.
The second amendment is the one proposed by the shadow Minister. Again, I have great sympathy with it. All legislation relating to such matters benefits from pre and post-legislative scrutiny, both because we need to get it right, for the obvious reasons we have debated—its salience, its significance, its importance—and because, to build the consensus necessary across the House to proceed in a way that maintains public faith, pre and post-legislative scrutiny is important. As recognised by all the contributors to this debate, the emergency we face is such that that has not been possible on this occasion. I would resist the shadow Minister’s amendment, not because I do not believe in the principle or the sentiments behind it but because there is a very good case for the Select Committees—notably the Home Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee—to look at this matter once the Bill has become an Act. I would be surprised if they did not. I know the Minister in his winding-up speech will—I will not say “invite that kind of scrutiny”, as I am not sure it is appropriate for a Minister to ask a Select Committee to investigate or scrutinise the Government—want to say that he would be surprised if they did not. That kind of reassurance would give great comfort to the House in measuring the effect of this important legislation.

Wera Hobhouse: We are having a very interesting and mature debate about getting this right, and of course it is paramount that we make sure the public are safe, but I do not understand what speaks against a review to make sure we get it right. Even if other legislation comes further down the line, why not have that double security?

John Hayes: We have well-established mechanisms, of the kind I have just described, for doing exactly that. Sometimes the Government build a review mechanism into legislation, but much more often the Committees of this House designed for that purpose consider the effectiveness of what the Government do and how legislation is working. Our Select Committee structure is now long established in the House—even longer established than my hon. Friend the Member for Stone—and fulfils that function well. Particularly in respect of legislation relating to terrorism, the Intelligence and Security Committee has, time and again, played an important role in considering these matters, reflecting, reporting and influencing Government policy, as I know from my time in the Home Office. So I think that there is well-established practice. If it ain’t broke, why fix it?

Daisy Cooper: The issue is not just that there should be a review, but who should conduct that review. The right hon. Gentleman has talked about various Select Committees, which, as we know, have a very broad workload. Does he agree that it is important to ensure that there is an independent review, conducted on our behalf by someone who is independent of the House and has experience in relation to the sentencing of terrorists?

John Hayes: We do, in fact, have an independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. In that context, I was privileged to work with Lord Carlile—a former Liberal Democrat Member of this House, by the way. So that role exists, but I do not want to underestimate the  significance or value of the Committees of this House in doing their job. The ISC in particular is a well-respected Committee of the House, which has a very strong track record of looking at these matters empirically and advising accordingly. My argument is not that we should not have that kind of scrutiny; ideally, it would have been a precursor to this legislation, but we should indeed consider allowing it through the mechanisms that I have described. I invite the Minister to embrace the spirit in which I have advanced my argument.
The third and final amendment that we have heard ably articulated during our considerations this afternoon is the one in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). Again, I am extremely sympathetic to the purpose of the amendment. Indeed, I might even go further, and say that “nine-tenths” is too modest. However, while my right hon. Friend’s amendment is welcome and adds pressure, if I might put it that way—he said “prodding” rather than “probing”, and I have added a third “p”, “pressure”, because I know that alliteration is dear to his heart—given that the Government have made crystal clear that in forthcoming legislation they will look at three matters, minimum sentences, maximum sentences and mandatory sentences, much of what he desires should form part of that further Government policy and practice. I hope that we can increase minimum sentences, that we can increase maximum sentences and that we can tie to that—as the Government have said they will, as I note from comments made in the statement by the Secretary of State following the recent terrorist outrage—

Greg Knight: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

John Hayes: I will just finish my sentence, and then I will give way happily to my right hon. and distinguished Friend.
The Government have said, and the Secretary of State was clear about it in the statement a few days ago, that tied to those three provisions will be the end of early release for certain kinds of prisoner. I now happily give way to my right hon. Friend before I move to my exciting peroration.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he not think that whatever scheme is ultimately settled upon, there needs to remain some incentive for someone who is in prison to behave him or herself?

John Hayes: I note that my right hon. Friend was preoccupied with urgent meetings when I spoke earlier, but if he reads the Hansard report of my earlier contribution, he will see that I am on exactly the same page as him, not for the first time. He is absolutely right that parole has historically always been considered on the basis of an assessment of both risk and worthiness. “Good behaviour” is the term that was once routinely used in respect of parole. When people have proved, through how they behave in prison, that they no longer pose a risk to the public and that they deserve to be released early, they should be. The problem with the current arrangement is the automatic nature of early release, and I resist that per se, not just in respect of terrorist prisoners but more widely. The public would be outraged if they knew just how many people have  been released early, including terrorists. Enough is enough; now the time to put an end to that. This is the beginning of it, and I happily support this legislation.

Nigel Evans: I call Nick Thomas- Symonds.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have already spoken in favour of my amendment. I have said that I do not wish to press it to a Division, but I would like to hear the Minister’s response to my suggestion about external scrutiny of the deradicalisation programme in our prisons.

Chris Philp: I would like to respond briefly to some of the points made in Committee, as well as speaking in support of clauses 1 to 10 and schedules 1 and 2 standing part of the Bill. Perhaps I could start with the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) concerning his proposed notwithstanding amendment. I repeat the point I made earlier, which the shadow Minister also made, that the Government have received categorical advice that these proposals are article 7 compliant. Of course there may well be challenges, and I cannot guarantee what the outcome of any litigation might be, but we are confident that the proposals are compliant.
My hon. Friend said that nothing less than certainty would do in cases of public safety, and I entirely understand that sentiment. Perhaps this would best be debated at another time, but I wonder whether his amendment as written would have the effect that he intends, because I do not think that simply writing a notwithstanding clause into a piece of primary legislation would abrogate our obligations under a treaty that we have entered into or preclude an applicant or litigant going directly to the European Court of Human Rights—they might go straight to Strasbourg—even if we could somehow prevent the use of the English and Welsh courts. I do not think the amendment as drafted would actually have the legal effect intended. However, my hon. Friend has, as always, raised some interesting constitutional questions, and I am sure they will be debated in the other place in due course. In our manifesto, we said that we would have a think about the operation of the Human Rights Act 1998 and some of the issues that he referred to in his speech. There will be plenty of opportunities in due course to consider at greater length the issues that he raised. I am grateful for his undertaking not to press his amendment to a vote today, but the whole Committee has certainly heard what he had to say and will carefully reflect on it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) gave me, in his words, a prod. Let me confirm that I am duly prodded on the questions of longer sentences for serious terrorist offenders and of their serving more of their sentence in prison. As a number of Members have said, it is our intention to bring forward a counter-terrorism, sentencing and release Bill in the relatively near future. It is also the Government’s intention to define a cohort of the most serious terrorist offenders and to seek a minimum sentence of 14 years for those serious offenders and ensure that all the sentence handed down by the judge is served in prison. I think that that will respond to the point that my right hon. Friend was making.

Alex Chalk: I am grateful to the Minister for those indications about sentencing. Does he agree that the review needs to consider all terrorist offences, including relatively minor ones—such as offences under sections 57 and 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 relating to possession of materials—that might in and of themselves not attract a particularly long sentence? Given that they are responsible for almost half of all terrorist sentences handed out, does he agree that they need to be considered as part of the review?

Chris Philp: We will consider all terrorist offenders as part of the review. Of course, the sentencing provisions I just described would not be appropriate for all terror offenders—just the most serious—but I assure my hon. Friend that we will be considering the totality of terror offending. Of course, the Streatham offender had committed one of the offences that my hon. Friend just described—possession of terrorist material—so we must be mindful that even when someone commits an offence that, on the face of it, is at the less serious end of the offending spectrum, they can none the less go on to do quite serious things. The Government are extremely mindful of that.

John Hayes: There are two points to be made in respect of what the Minister has just said. First, the vast majority of people convicted under terrorism legislation are sentenced to between one and 20 years. Now, he is talking about “the most serious”. What does he mean by “the most serious”? Secondly, a large number of people are convicted for terrorism-related offences under non-terrorism legislation—hundreds, actually, over the years. Will they be included in these considerations?

Chris Philp: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. In relation to the second part of it, terrorist-related offences do form part of this Bill. Part 2 of proposed new schedule 19ZA to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which is found in schedule 1 to this Bill, covers terrorist-related offences under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 and lists the various direct offences, including manslaughter, culpable homicide and kidnapping, that are terrorist-related offences. Such offences are, therefore, in the scope of this Bill, and we will carefully consider the implications for the counter-terrorism Bill that we will bring forward in due course.
Turning to the severity of offending, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), we will review all types of offending, so the whole spectrum will be in scope. As for how we define that “most serious” cohort, the Government are currently thinking quite carefully about the definition. I do not want to give my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) a definition today, because that will be a matter for the counter-terrorism Bill, but we are thinking about question extremely carefully, and the House will be able to debate it fully in due course.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), asked about a review of the effectiveness of the deradicalisation agenda. I agree that the review is critical, and several Members raised it on Second Reading. We are setting up a new counter-terrorism programmes and interventions centre within the Prisons and Probation Service that will look specifically at the  deradicalisation problem. We intend to publish further research and reports in the usual way, and I expect full scrutiny from Members. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said in his speech, we will fully embrace scrutiny of that description, and I would be surprised—my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) is not in his place—if the Justice Committee did not look at this area in due course. I accept the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings that proper and deep scrutiny of this area is needed, because the deradicalisation question is so important.

Lisa Cameron: The Minister is making some good points. Is there any scope to look at additional types of charges that could be laid against those who actively radicalise others in prison?

Chris Philp: I thank the hon. Lady for her important intervention. The radicalisation of one prisoner by another is a deeply invidious phenomenon, and she is right to highlight it. The normal offences that would apply to any member of the public, including things like incitement to racial hatred, would apply to prisoners just as much. I encourage the authorities to use those laws where applicable regardless of whether the person doing the inciting, which is a criminal offence in itself, is in prison.
The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), in the same vein as the hon. Member for Torfaen, talked about the need to scrutinise the effect of this legislation after it has passed. Once again, I accept the thrust of what she says. It is important that we keep the effect of legislation under review, particularly where it is passed in such a necessarily expeditious fashion. I would expect the Justice Committee to take an interest in this, and the House will have a chance to take a great interest when we come to debate the counter-terrorism Bill in a few months’ time. There will then be a lot more time available for us to debate these matters and, indeed, to review the operation of this Bill, which by then will have been in effect for a few months.
In terms of an independent review that goes beyond Parliament’s Committees and, indeed, this House—as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said in reply to an intervention by the hon. Member for St Albans—I expect that Jonathan Hall QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, will be conducting independent reviews of exactly the kind the hon. Member for St Albans described.
I think that covers many of the points raised on the various amendments and new clauses. On the substance of the Bill, it is worth briefly highlighting that clause 1 specifies the release provisions we have been talking about and the two-thirds release point for prisoners in England and Wales, at which point the Parole Board’s discretion will be applied.
Clause 1 also references schedule 1, which specifies the kinds of offences that are in scope. Part 1 of proposed new schedule 19ZA to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 defines the terrorist offences that are in scope, and part 2 defines the offences that may be determined to have a terrorist connection.
Clause 2 disapplies some historical transitional provisions dating back to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Those are essentially technical amendments to make sure this legislation works in a way that is consistent with the Act.
Clauses 3 and 4 apply these provisions to Scotland. We are keen to make sure that the public in Scotland are protected as much as the public in England and Wales. In that context, I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) for his supportive remarks. I hope I can infer from his remarks that our colleagues in the Scottish Government in Holyrood are supportive of the proposals.

Kenny MacAskill: indicated assent.

Chris Philp: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s confirmation that the Scottish Government support these provisions.
Clause 5 relates to the setting of licence conditions. Clause 6 makes further consequential amendments relating to transitional cases. Clause 7 makes further consequential amendments that apply to England and Wales. Clause 8 makes transitional provisions in relation to offenders in Scotland and, again, clause 9 makes further consequential amendments that apply to Scotland.
Finally, clause 10 specifies the Bill’s territorial extent and commencement. It is worth saying that commencement will be upon Royal Assent, and we therefore hope the Bill takes effect from 27 February, which is important from the perspective of the release of certain dangerous offenders.
I hope that covers the clauses and schedules, and that they will stand part of the Bill.

Bill Cash: As I have already made clear, I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the amendment with the restrictions and conditions that I have already imposed with regard to the House of Lords.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 1 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading

Robert Buckland: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
May I thank all Members for taking part in this important debate, on a Bill that, as Members on both sides of the House have demonstrated comprehensively, was timely and necessary? We have a proud history of coming together in times of adversity against people who seek to divide us. Together, we can make sure that the terrorists who seek to threaten our way of life will never win.
I readily acknowledge that we are passing this Bill to a very tight timescale, but the appalling attacks we witnessed at Streatham and at Fishmongers’ Hall made it plain that the time for action was now, which is why I welcome the sense of urgency that has been shared in all parts of the House. That has necessarily shortened the time available to debate these issues, but I will of course continue to engage with Members across the House on  these matters. There will be further opportunities to legislate on these issues, both in our forthcoming counter-terrorism, sentencing and release Bill and, more broadly, in the sentencing Bill that we will introduce following our sentencing White Paper later this year.
We will also review the current maximum penalties and sentencing framework for terrorist offences to ensure that they are sufficient and comprehensive. Our underlying principle is this: terrorist offenders should no longer be released before the end of their custodial sentence unless the Parole Board is satisfied that they are no longer a risk to the public.
I take this opportunity to thank all the officials, not only those who have assisted us in the Box today, but all the team at the Ministry of Justice, who have worked at pace and in great detail on complex issues of national importance, to a timescale that is perhaps unusual and almost unprecedented. We do owe them a deep debt of gratitude, and I am honoured to place that formally on the record.
For now, passing this Bill will take a significant step to ensuring that the British public, whom we serve, are being given the protection they need, by ensuring that terrorist offenders spend longer in prison in all cases and are not automatically released without being fully and properly assessed.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I agree with the Secretary of State that we have had a constructive debate in the Chamber on this Bill. As I indicated at the outset, the Opposition support the idea of Parole Board involvement and, indeed, risk assessment for terrorist prisoners across the board.
Clearly, we will need to address an issue of investment in deradicalisation programmes and proper mechanisms to be able to assess how effective they are. We will be holding the Government to account on those issues in the months and years ahead. There is also a wider issue to address on sentencing. As I indicated in my earlier remarks, this of course became an emergency because of the incidents we have seen in recent months, but there does need to be greater long-term planning, which I hope the Secretary of State will be able to provide to the Department in the years ahead.
I also echo what the Secretary of State said about the officials, who obviously had to produce this Bill very quickly. I would like to thank him for his work with me on this over the past week. I also thank the Under-Secretary   of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and all those right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate today.
I should also put on record in Hansard my thanks to Robert Keenan in my office: he has had very quickly to turn around work on the Bill on a very short-term basis since it was first published.
On that basis, I hope that the Bill will pass its Third Reading without a Division.

Kenny MacAskill: I echo the comments of both the Opposition spokesman and the Lord Chancellor. We have put on record the requirement for unity on this issue. I thank the Lord Chancellor and his staff for the manner in which they introduced the Bill. Legislation is never easy, and this Bill was particularly difficult with regard to the retrospectivity, but as much information as could be provided was provided. As others have done correctly, I put on record our tribute not only to those in the Government offices who have drafted the legislation, but to those involved here at Parliament, because they must have been working long into the night to make sure that information was provided for Members.
With those tributes appropriately made, I simply concur with the thanks to all involved.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Business of the House (24 February)

Ordered,
That at the sitting on Monday 24 February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on—
(a) the Motion in the name of Secretary Priti Patel relating to Police Grant Report not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion, and
(b) the Motions in the name of Secretary Robert Jenrick relating to Local Government Finance not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion or six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion relating to Police Grant Report, whichever is the later; proceedings on those Motions may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Leo Docherty.)

Marine Licensing

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Leo Docherty.)

Steve Double: I am delighted to bring to the House this debate to consider the process for the consultation on marine licensing applications carried out by the Marine Management Organisation on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The process has come to my attention in recent years because the way in which it works has led to widespread dismay among my local fishing communities. They have been left out of the consultation process when it comes to considering important decisions that impact on their livelihoods.
The Cornish fishing industry has recently been highlighted on a national scale, not only in the British Academy of Film and Television Arts award-winning short film “Bait”, much of which was filmed in St Austell bay and which stars local Cornishman Ed Rowe, but in the excellent BBC series “Cornwall: This Fishing Life”. The series has highlighted, and brought to national prominence as never before, the highs and lows of the Cornish fishing communities and the tremendous risks involved in one of the most dangerous professions. Of the six episodes that were shown, I would have to say—although I may well be biased—that the first was the best, because it highlighted the thriving harbour of Mevagissey in my mid-Cornwall constituency and the fishermen who fish out of that port, often in under- 10 metre boats, in all weathers and at all times of the year.
Let me provide some important background information on this jewel in the crown of fishing in Cornwall. Mevagissey is the second busiest and fastest-growing fishing port in Cornwall. Mevagissey harbour is home to a fleet of 62 registered fishing vessels and employs 94 full-time fishermen and dozens more who support the fishing industry. Some 75% of the fleet work very close to or within 500 metres of the shore at some point during the year, and many work exclusively close to the shore. An average year sees around £2.5 million-worth of fish landed into Mevagissey. I believe I can say with some accuracy that somewhere in the region of £1 million- worth of that fish is caught within 500 metres of the shore.
The primary fishing industry aside, Mevagissey harbour relies heavily on associated fishing dues and revenues, but it also attracts 800,000 tourists every year, largely because it is a living, thriving fishing port. As Members can imagine, any issue that would impact on the lifeblood of Mevagissey without consultation with the fishermen would be cause for much consternation in the community.
That brings me to the marine licensing consultation process, as carried out by the MMO, and specifically to decisions that were recently taken about mussel farms. Mussel farms, for colleagues who may not know, are made by intertwining heavy rope with large floats in areas of coastal water. Mussels are attracted to the ropes and grow off them, and can then be harvested.
I have nothing at all against mussel farms; in fact, I am a huge fan of that growing sector. Sea farming is a sustainable way to grow and cultivate shellfish, and the mussels that are farmed from St Austell bay are, of  course, the finest mussels in the country. However, naturally, the deployment of mussel farms, which can cover vast areas of the sea, can hinder more traditional fishing activities from taking place in that area. So when a large mussel farm situated in St Austell bay, in an important area for the Mevagissey inshore fishing fleet, appeared—from their point of view—out of the blue, members of the local fishing community were understandably vexed. The Mevagissey Fishermen’s Association contacted the MMO and asked what had gone on.
It turned out that no individual or organisation in Mevagissey had been consulted by the MMO when considering the application for a new mussel farm—not the Mevagissey parish council, the harbour trustees or Mevagissey fishermen, either through their association or individually. Yet fishermen are constantly receiving information from the MMO, so their contact details would have been readily available, and consulting them would not have required a massive time or resource commitment.
It turns out that the MMO did consult some groups—specifically, the Royal Fowey Yacht Club. The club replied that the original location for the mussel farm would have had an adverse effect on recreational boating and sailing, and that led to the farm’s being moved to a place where it became a hindrance to fishermen. I place it on the record that I have nothing against the Royal Fowey Yacht Club. It is a fine establishment, which can be traced as far back as 1880, and whose patron is no other than the Duke of Cornwall. I absolutely respect the club’s right to be consulted on the application and to raise its concerns regarding the positioning of the new mussel farm.

Scott Mann: The MMO does not have a great track record on consultation. Its recent proposals for the catch app have not gone down particularly well with fishermen from Padstow. I ask my hon. Friend to consider, when he makes his approach to the Minister, whether we could look at the catch app and see whether any alternatives to that could better serve many of our fishermen in Cornwall.

Steve Double: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for raising that point. He makes a very good point about the wider concern in the fishing industry about the lack of consultation that often goes on with the MMO. The specific point that he raises regarding the catch app has been raised by many in the fishing industry in Cornwall, and I hope that the Minister will look at it again.
The MMO was right to consult the yacht club. However, the Mevagissey fishermen, who have a legitimate expectation to be able to fish in the area where the new mussel farm was constructed, where they have fished for generations, should also have been consulted, and it was wrong for the MMO not to consult the local fishermen. The MMO did not follow their duty to act fairly when considering the application, by not informing the most affected stakeholders, who make their living in the waters in question.
The fishermen brought this matter to my attention, and on appraising the consultation process for marine licensing, I have found it to be out-of-date and not fit for purpose. I have subsequently been in prolonged correspondence with the MMO, with DEFRA and with  previous ministerial colleagues, to seek to reform the process and ensure that local fishermen are an integral part of the decision making process.
I believe that there is room to improve the MMO’s consultation process to make it more robust and much more like that for planning applications. Maritime licences can, after all, have an impact on their surroundings just as much as buildings on land can have following a planning application, but at the moment there does not seem to be the same level of structure or clear consultation with statutory consultees for MMO licences as there is for planning applications.
The MMO originally replied that it would consider including local parish councils among the statutory consultees for fishing communities. Again, that would be similar to the process followed for planning applications. Parish councils such as Mevagissey’s are integral parts of their community, are well connected with the local fishing community and harbour, and would, in my mind, be natural consultees. However, that was not followed up, as it was apparently considered to involve too much additional work for the MMO. I would challenge that. Particularly in areas such as Cornwall, which has a unitary council and no district councils, parish councils play an increasingly important role in representing their communities. It surely cannot be beyond the MMO’s ability to consult directly with them.
If, however, the MMO is not prepared to consult parish councils, a fair compromise would be to transfer responsibility in the consultation process for checking with local bodies such as fishermen’s associations from the MMO to the local authority, which is already a statutory consultee. This would accomplish the dual outcomes of taking pressure off the MMO and allowing the local authority, which would presumably have a greater knowledge base, to speak to the right people. If that does not happen, the MMO, in conjunction with the local inshore fisheries conservation authorities, should draw up an up-to-date list of all fishermen’s associations and make them integrated statutory consultees for every licensing application.
There is also scope—I ask the Minister to look at this—for modernising the public notice element of the process, which stipulates only that a small and sparsely worded notice be published in a local newspaper. As we are all aware, the readership of local newspapers is falling as more and more people obtain their news online. This method of giving notice of applications seems outdated. The process could be brought up to date; applications could be circulated online, alongside the existing notice, as part of the MMO’s regular communication with fishing communities. Fishermen also tell me that the MMO’s website is difficult to navigate; even when they know that there is a live licensing application, it is difficult to find it on the website.
In conclusion, I hope I have shown that the MMO licensing consultation needs to be reviewed and significantly changed. The MMO needs to change the process to ensure that groups such as fishermen and parish councils are aware of licensing applications and are consulted on them. It needs to modernise the way it notifies the public about applications, and to improve its website, so that live applications can be easily found.
I hope the Minister will take on board the points I have raised on behalf of my local fishermen. I look forward to going back to Mevagissey and giving the fishermen the good news that we in this place have  listened to their concerns and that the system will be reviewed and changed, so that in future, their views are sought on decisions that directly affect their livelihoods.

Rebecca Pow: First, I think this is the first time that I have had the honour of speaking while you are in the Chair, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure.
Secondly, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing this debate. He is always passionate about his constituency, and is constantly standing up for his community. I agree that the short film, “Bait”, which I have seen, is an invaluable slice of that iconic life in his part of the world. It is really worth seeing.
Let me take this opportunity to recognise the importance of marine licensing and planning, which are vital tools in managing the use of our marine space and the competing demands placed on it. My hon. Friend’s debate is timely, with the launch of the Marine Management Organisation’s consultation on four new marine plans in January. The delivery of the plans is a key aspect of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Marine plans inform and guide marine users and regulators across England. The plans will manage the sustainable development of marine industries, such as wind farms and fishing, alongside the need to conserve and protect marine species and habitats. Economic growth will be supported in a way that benefits society while respecting the needs of local communities and protecting the marine environment.
Marine planning enables the increasing and, at times, competing demands for the use of our marine area to be balanced and managed in an integrated way. The Government are committed to ensuring that there is a full set of marine plans in place by 2021, so that we meet the commitment set out in our 25-year environment plan. The plans will be a significant milestone for the Government in ensuring the long-term sustainable development of our seas. Marine development is central to the Government’s ambition. Indeed, everyone seems to want a piece of the blue space right now, so we will keep under review how our approach to marine planning might need to evolve to meet future challenges. I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments because this space will definitely be growing and evolving.
Interested parties have been, and will continue to be, engaged in the process, and they will have an opportunity to influence how their marine environment is managed. That is very important. The recent marine plans consultation covers my hon. Friend’s constituency of St Austell and Newquay, where the local sea area is recognised to be vital. The draft south-west inshore plan, which covers a total of approximately 16,000 sq km of sea—a big space—will introduce a strategic approach to inform where activities might take place. The MMO has undertaken extensive public engagement in the development of this plan to ensure that it captures local priorities.
The consultation closes on 6 April, and I have asked the MMO as a matter of urgency to ensure that it writes to the relevant coastal MPs to highlight the importance of contributing to the consultation, just in case they have not done so already—or, indeed, to forward it to  people that they think ought to be involved. Likewise, I encourage any body or organisation that has an interest in the local sea to respond to the consultation. The importance of stakeholder engagement in this process cannot be overstated, which is why a statement of public participation is in place for these plans, setting out how and when we will engage with stakeholders during the marine planning process. When these plans are adopted, someone applying for a licence or approval will need to show how they have considered the plan, so this will be an important step in the future of marine planning.
Although marine plans play an important strategic role, the delivery of sustainable development in our seas is underpinned by our marine licensing system. Marine licensing covers a diverse range of activities—from depositing a marker on the seabed, through to significant infrastructure developments. Introduced under the Marine and Coastal Access Act, marine licensing is a process by which those seeking to undertake certain activities in the marine environment are required to apply for a licence. This is to ensure that we can promote the economic and social benefits of the marine environment while minimising the adverse effects on the environment, human health and other users of the sea. Under the Act, in England we have delegated the responsibility for implementing marine licensing to the MMO, and our approach to marine licensing is based on evidence-based decision making through which human activities in the marine area are regulated.
My hon. Friend raised some serious concerns about the licensing regime, and he made no bones about it. Let me highlight the recent improvements made to the marine licensing system. Only last year, the Government exempted certain activities from the licensing process to support those who realise environmental benefit—for example, to enable divers to remove marine litter from a marine area without the need to apply for a marine licence. I know that my hon. Friend has a particular interest in this area. This is just one of many steps that we are taking to ensure that plastic waste does not pollute the ocean. Between 4.8 million and 12.7 million tonnes of plastic enter the global ocean every year; it is absolutely shocking. That is why we have to focus on tackling this flow, and hopefully this is one measure that will help. In the resources and waste strategy for England, we set out how we will minimise waste, promote resource efficiency and move towards a more circular economy.
The MMO has focused its efforts on improving the public consultation process, including making the process of submitting representations via the online system more user-friendly. This has been to the benefit of parish councils and others who have used the system. Where parish councils or any other party have expressed a desire to be included in a specific consultation, the MMO can facilitate that when it is practicable to do so. The MMO has also designated area liaison leads for coastal development to attend coastal groups and forums at a regional level around the country. Through this engagement activity, the MMO seeks to raise awareness and understanding of the marine licensing process. It is really important that people understand how it works  and how they can input into it. I take many of my hon. Friend’s points about how that might potentially be improved.
The Government have a commitment in the 25-year environment plan to ensure that all local authorities with a coastal interest are signed up to the coastal concordat by 2021. The coastal concordat is designed to remove red tape and streamline the consenting process for both regulators and applicants. This applies to the consenting of coastal developments in England. The MMO welcomes feedback on how to improve this service, and it will always seek to implement this where practicable.
In 2017-18, the MMO determined more than 800 applications on variations to licences—in 94% of cases, within a 13-week framework. I specifically asked for these figures prior to this debate because I wanted to know exactly what it is dealing with—and it is pretty significant. The MMO always strives to improve its service. On hearing my hon. Friend’s concerns relating to difficulties with the Mevagissey Fishermen’s Protection Association’s experiences of the consultation, I will urge it to do more in this area, including the website improvements that he mentioned.
I will now focus on the marine licence consultation for the mussel farm in Mevagissey bay. I do love a mussel, with a bit of white wine cream—lovely—and a bit of onion, chopped: very nice. My hon. Friend is right to bring to our attention the concerns of the Mevagissey Fishermen’s Protection Association on the marine licence consultation for a mussel farm in Mevagissey bay. I thank him, the Mevagissey Fishermen’s Protection Association and the MMO for their efforts to find an acceptable way forward. It is important that individuals can make their voices heard on decisions that may affect them. I note the concerns of the association and others on how the consultation for the marine licence application was conducted. Those concerns focus on the potential impact on the Mevagissey fishermen and other users of the bay, and the perceived lack of consultation regarding the licence application.
I understand that subsequently the MMO has worked with the Mevagissey Fishermen’s Protection Association to try to resolve this and that the MMO had initially explained that its consultation process gave the fishing industry the opportunity to comment through the inshore fisheries and conservation authority or through public representation. Following further correspondence with the association, the MMO has offered to consult it on any future amendments to the marine licence in question. In the light of concerns raised, though, it may be the case that consideration should be given to providing guidance to the MMO about the circumstances where the IFCA should be offered the chance to be a formal consultee. I shall explore this further.
My hon. Friend inquired whether parish councils can be made statutory consultees in the marine licensing process. The Marine and Coastal Access Act does not name specific persons or bodies that have to be consulted on a particular application, but it provides that the MMO may consult any person or body with relevant expertise about a licensing application, in addition to an obligation to have regard to any representations made by any person in respect of a particular application.
The MMO has considered the points that my hon. Friend makes about parish councils carefully. In many  cases, other local organisations are equally, or perhaps better, placed to respond to the consultation. A statutory requirement to engage parish councils, which would require primary legislation, would potentially lead to a slower and more expensive service for the applicants. There is a risk that that approach would achieve the exact opposite of the efficient and cost-effective service that the MMO strives to provide. However, I am keen to explore further how local engagement on marine licence consultation can be strengthened with the MMO and other local bodies. If a relevant parish council is key to a particular application, it seems important to seek its views; that is a good point.
I take my hon. Friend’s point about advertising forthcoming applications in local newspapers. Even though I am a great advocate of our local press and have   written for many local newspapers, their circulation is unfortunately declining, so all ways of advertising these things should be considered.
I thank my hon. Friend, who is always an advocate for his area and has put it on the map since he first came here. The Government acknowledge his concerns, and I hope it is clear that improvements to our marine planning and licensing are being worked on as I speak. I will write to the MMO to ask it to further consider how it consults fishermen’s associations and parish councils, and I shall report back to him.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.